- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Orissa And Another v. Damodar Nayak And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The Registry reported that service of notice on the respondents was complete, but the respondents did not appear either personally or through counsel. Leave was granted. The matter came before the court in an appeal challenging an order of the High Court dated 23-4-1996 in OJC No. 3548 of 1996.
Respondent 1 was appointed as a lecturer in 1978 in a recognised non-government college. Government materials referenced in the order include: (i) a Resolution dated 13-9-1983 prescribing recruitment qualifications for lecturers of affiliated colleges, and (ii) a clarification dated 5-1-1987 stating that certain unqualified lecturers (with minimum second class in P.G. examination, i.e., 48% or above and below 54%) appointed on or after 1-8-1977 would be eligible to receive grants-in-aid.
Respondent 1 had 53.9% marks in the P.G. examination and acquired the relevant qualification on 21-3-1989.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Respondent 1 was entitled to payment of salary under the Grants-in-Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment (1978) until improving qualifications, or only from the date of acquiring the requisite qualification (21-3-1989).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court confined itself to the issue identified in the notice: the commencement date for eligibility to salary payment under the Grants-in-Aid Scheme in light of the lecturer's qualifications.
The court noted the applicable qualification standard referenced in the Government Resolution dated 13-9-1983, which indicated that a candidate not holding an M.Phil degree should possess a high second class Master's degree (54% marks) along with a second class Honours/Pass in the relevant undergraduate examination. It also recorded the Government's clarification dated 5-1-1987 regarding eligibility of certain unqualified lecturers for grants-in-aid.
On the admitted facts, Respondent 1 did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of his appointment in 1978 and acquired the qualification only on 21-3-1989 (having secured 53.9%, described as almost equivalent to 54%). The court therefore concluded that he would be eligible for the benefit of grants-in-aid only from 1-4-1989 onwards, i.e., after acquiring the qualification, and not from the date of initial appointment.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order dated 23-4-1996 in OJC No. 3548 of 1996 was modified to the extent that Respondent 1's eligibility for grants-in-aid for salary payment would operate w.e.f. 1-4-1989 onwards. No costs were awarded.
The direct implication is that the second respondent (the authority responsible for grants-in-aid) is liable to extend grants-in-aid for payment of Respondent 1's salary only from 1-4-1989 and not for the period from the initial appointment in 1978 until acquisition of the qualification. The order does not discuss broader implications or establish any new precedent.
Order
1. The report of the Registry indicates that the service is complete. However, the respondents are not appearing either in person or through counsel.
2. Leave granted.
3*. The question limited to the notice is whether the respondent would be entitled to payment of salary under the Grants-in-Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the date of his acquiring the qualification? The admitted position is that Respondent 1 came to be appointed as a lecturer in 1978. The Government issued clarification on 5-1-1987 that unqualified lecturers having minimum second class, i.e, 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G examination and appointed on or after 1-8-1977 in recognised non-government colleges would be eligible to receive grants-in-aid. The Resolution dated 13-9-1983 issued by the Government prescribes the qualifications for recruitment of lecturers of affiliated colleges which indicates that “candidate not holding an M.Phil degree should possess a high second class Master's degree, i.e, 54% marks and a second class Honours/Pass in the B.A/B.Com/B.Sc examination”. Respondent 1 secured 53.9% marks, which is almost equivalent to 54% marks, on 21-3-1989. Therefore, the question arises whether the second respondent is entitled to receive grants-in-aid for payment of salary to the first respondent from the date of his acquiring qualification or from the date of initial appointment? Admittedly, since the first respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification and acquired the same only on 21-3-1989, he will be eligible to the benefit of the grants-in-aid w.e.f 1-4-1989 and onwards.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court passed on 23-4-1996 in OJC No. 3548 of 1996, to that extent stands modified. No costs.
Alert