In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice Sashikanta Mishra, denied a petitioner's claim for service regularization, emphasizing the detrimental impact of prolonged delays in seeking legal remedies, especially when the petitioner has secured subsequent employment elsewhere.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was appointed on July 4, 1991, as an Additional Trained Graduate Teacher in Akhua Odanga High School, holding a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry, Botany, and Zoology. Her appointment received confirmation from the school's Managing Committee on July 31, 1991. Subsequently, on July 23, 1996, the committee recommended her appointment for approval to the educational authorities. The Inspector of Schools, after conducting the necessary verifications, forwarded her case to the Director of Secondary Education, advocating for the approval of her appointment and the release of her salary under the direct payment scheme.
However, the Director did not approve her appointment, citing her lack of the requisite B.Ed. qualification at the time. The petitioner acquired this qualification in July 1996 while serving in her position. In response to the non-approval, she filed a writ petition, which was addressed on May 14, 1998. The court directed the Director of Secondary Education to consider her representation after a thorough inquiry. Despite this directive, no action was taken by the authorities.
In a related development, the School and Mass Education Department issued a letter on April 24, 2000, declaring that individuals who had not obtained their B.Ed. qualification by April 7, 1994, would be deemed illegally appointed and removed from service. This directive faced challenges from numerous Additional Section Teachers before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. On February 24, 2003, the Tribunal quashed the department's letter, referencing the precedent set in Bibekananda Das v. State of Orissa, leading to the approval of appointments for similarly situated teachers.
The petitioner, asserting her similarity to those beneficiaries, submitted multiple representations to the authorities, requesting reinstatement and associated benefits. Despite her efforts, the authorities remained unresponsive, prompting her to file the current writ petition.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
The court observed that the petitioner had ceased her duties at Akhua Odanga High School in 1998 and subsequently joined as a lecturer in a different institution. This transition indicated her acquiescence to the non-approval of her initial appointment. The court emphasized that she had remained inactive regarding her claim for over two decades.
Justice Mishra underscored the legal principle that while claims based on a continuing wrong might be entertained despite delays, issues concerning seniority or promotion, which affect others, become untenable when subjected to extensive delays. The court referenced the Supreme Court's stance in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, highlighting that belated service-related claims are generally dismissed due to delay and laches, especially when they pertain to seniority or promotion, impacting third parties.
In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the petitioner's prolonged inaction, coupled with her acceptance of alternative employment, invalidated her claim for regularization. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance on the importance of timely legal action in service-related matters. It serves as a cautionary tale for employees to promptly address grievances related to appointments and service regularizations. The ruling also highlights that securing alternative employment can be interpreted as an implicit acceptance of previous employment decisions, further weakening delayed claims.
By upholding the principles of promptness and diligence, the Orissa High Court aims to maintain administrative efficiency and prevent the reopening of settled matters, ensuring stability and predictability in service jurisprudence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.