NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 59635964 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.93029303/2019)
State of Odisha & Ors. .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Arati Mohapatra …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. The AppellantState of Odisha & others are before this
Court in these appeals assailing the orders dated 20.03.2018
and 06.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa in WP(C)
No.22713/2014 and Review Petition No.230/2018. By the order
passed in the writ petition, the learned Division Bench of the
High Court has set aside the orders passed by the Odisha
Page 1 of 11
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A.
No.2699(C)/2006 and M.P. No.729(C)/2006.
2. The brief facts leading to the present round of litigation
between the parties has the genesis in the selection process
which was initiated in the year 1996 for recruitment of primary
school teachers in government schools, in the State of Odisha.
Through the resolution dated 12.03.1996 the procedure for
recruitment was formulated and the selection process was
initiated. Pursuant thereto a list consisting of 379 candidates
selected for appointment was published on 31.01.1997. The
name of the respondent herein was indicated at Serial No.301
and it had depicted that the respondent had secured 114.80
marks. The respondent was accordingly appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in Singiri, in the Pay Scale of Rs.108030
EB301800. The respondent no.1 had joined duty on
30.07.1997.
3. When this was the position a group of aggrieved
unsuccessful candidates approached the State Administrative
Tribunal (for short ‘SAT’) in O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and
analogous petitions alleging irregularities and foul play in the
Page 2 of 11
selection process. The SAT having considered the same,
accepted the contention of the applicants and through the order
dated 24.01.2001 directed the recruiting authority to prepare a
fresh select list category wise. Since the said process had not
been completed, one of the applicants Ms. Prem Lata Panda
filed a Contempt Petition No.382(C)/2001 before the SAT
alleging noncompliance of the order dated 24.01.2001. The
SAT, through the order dated 02.12.2004 directed that a fresh
select list be prepared within four months. The appellants
herein, in compliance thereto prepared a fresh selection list
dated 15.12.2004 and the appointments made were withdrawn
in order to comply with the order.
4. One Ms. Saillasuta Dei filed an application before the SAT
in O.A.No.305/2005 impugning the action of the appellants in
withdrawing the appointments and in that light sought for
strict implementation of the order dated 24.01.2001 passed in
O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and analogous matters. In that view, the
appellants appointed a Committee on 08.09.2006 to prepare a
fresh merit list as also a reselect list of candidates which was
accordingly prepared and approved on 17.11.2006. As per the
Page 3 of 11
list the last of the candidate selected in the general category
had secured 111.53 marks. The marks shown against the name
of the respondent was 109.86 due to which the appellants
contended that the respondent was not entitled to continue in
service.
5. In that view, the respondent was terminated from service
on 30.11.2006. The respondent claiming to be aggrieved by
such termination filed an application before the SAT in O.A.
No.2699(C)/2006. Certain other candidates who were
terminated from service either due to the criteria of the
difference in marks or due to the fabrication of documents had
also approached the SAT making out a grievance with regard to
the termination. The SAT having taken note of the rival
contentions passed a common order dated 03.06.2014 wherein
the O.A. No.2699(C)/2006 filed by the respondent herein was
also disposed of. However, in the course of the order the SAT
had taken note that the applicants before it have already been
terminated from service because they filed forged
certificates/documents and a vigilance case is pending. Hence,
it ordered that a decision is to be taken after conclusion of the
Page 4 of 11
vigilance case. In that view, it was observed that if the decision
in the vigilance case goes in their favour they would be at
liberty to approach the departmental authorities for redressal of
their grievance relating to reinstatement.
6. The case of the respondent herein was also included in the
above said order. Obviously, the said observation was an error
insofar as the respondent is concerned since the termination of
the respondent was not due to that reason but due to the
difference in the marks which was noticed while preparing the
fresh reselection list. The respondent therefore filed a Review
Petition in M.P.No.729(C)/2006 before the SAT which was
disposed of by the order dated 21.10.2014. Though the said
observation was deleted by the review petition, the SAT having
taken note that the marks shown in the reselection list against
the name of the respondent being 109.88 as against what was
originally shown as 114.80 marks, did not see reason to
interfere with the termination order.
7. The respondent therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the
order dated 03.06.2014 in O.A. No.2699(C)/2006 and the order
dated 21.10.2014 in M.P. No.729(C)/2006 approached the High
Page 5 of 11
Court in the abovestated writ petition. The High Court on
taking note of the sequence of events, took into consideration
the marks which was originally awarded to the respondent i.e.,
114.80 marks, more particularly relying on the details of the
minutes dated 31.01.1997 which was obtained by the
respondent under the provisions of the Right to Information Act
(for short ‘RTI Act’) wherein the name of the respondent
appeared at Serial No.301 as she had been awarded 114.80
marks. The learned Division Bench of the High Court
accordingly directed the appellants herein to treat the
respondent as having secured 114.80 marks in the selection list
and communicate a reasoned order to the respondent within
three months. The review filed against the said order was
dismissed keeping in view the limited scope available in review,
rather than adverting to the contentions put forth on merit to
seek review. It is in that light, the appellants being aggrieved
are before this Court.
8. We have heard Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the appeals
Page 6 of 11
papers including the written submission filed on behalf of both
parties.
9. The sequence of the events noted above and the series of
litigation between the parties including the challenge to the
original selection list by a group of unsuccessful candidates
which led to the formation of a reselection committee and the
preparation of reselected list after considering the matter
afresh is not in serious dispute. Though the genesis for the
earlier select list being cancelled and the reselection list being
published was the allegation made by the unsuccessful
candidates in O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and analogous petitions
that there was foul play in the process, the fact that the select
list has been rearranged based on the marks obtained is
evident from the facts narrated above. It is also undisputed that
the respondent is not one of those candidates against whom an
allegation is made with regard to the submission of fabricated
documents for obtaining appointment. In fact this aspect is
clear from the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by SAT in M.P.
No.729(C)/2006. In the said order, the reason to justify the
termination of respondent is taken note, which is that the
Page 7 of 11
respondent had obtained 109.88 marks and was accordingly
placed at the appropriate spot in the reselect list. The said
marks was lesser than the last selected candidate in the general
category, who had obtained 111.53 marks.
10. Against the above backdrop, it is noticed that the only
reason for which the High Court has intervened and directed
the appellants herein to consider the case of the respondent by
reckoning the marks secured by her as 114.80 is by taking note
of the information secured under RTI Act relied upon by the
respondent, wherein the minutes dated 31.01.1997 indicated
the marks obtained by the respondent as 114.80 marks and
she was placed at Serial No.301.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks to justify
the conclusion reached by the High Court since according to
him the information was obtained from the official files under
the RTI Act and such information would justify that the
respondent having obtained 114.80 marks is entitled to be
selected, which action has been directed by the High Court to
be taken by the petitioners herein.
Page 8 of 11
12. The learned counsel for the appellants would, on the
other hand, contend that the error in the conclusion reached by
the High Court is due to the fact that the reliance was placed
on the list which was prepared on 31.01.1997, the details of
which were furnished under the RTI Act. Though that was the
position in the list finalised on 31.01.1997, the same had been
set aside by the SAT in O.A. No.2792(C)/1999 and due to the
orders passed therein, subsequent thereto a reselection list
was prepared. In the said process the marks were correctly
assigned wherein the marks obtained by the respondent in the
viva voce was 14.40 which while added to her marks obtained
towards matriculation of 44.42 marks and 51.04 marks in the
competitive test, the total would add up to 109.86 and not
114.80 marks as claimed. Hence, it is contended that the High
Court was not justified in its conclusion.
13. In the light of the above, the only question for
consideration is as to whether the High Court was justified in
taking note of the information merely because it was secured
under the RTI Act, to be the basis for its conclusion. We are of
the opinion that the High Court was not justified and had fallen
Page 9 of 11
into error. This is for the reason that the information furnished
under the RTI Act showing the name of the respondent at Serial
No.301, having obtained 114.80 marks was the select list which
was prepared for the first time, which was the subject matter of
litigation; had been set aside and was therefore not reckonable.
In the reselect list, the name of the respondent is shown at
Serial No.474 having obtained 109.86 marks. The marks
awarded by the three Selection Committee members in the
Vivavoce is shown as 16;20.20 and 7, the total of which to be
divided by 3 will work out to the average of 14.40 marks in
Vivavoce. The same if added to the career marks of 95.46, the
total would be 109.86 marks which is in consonance with the
stand taken and contention put forth by the appellants.
14. Hence, all these aspects will reveal that, though it had
been shown as 114.80 marks in the list which was finalised on
31.01.1997, when it is admitted that the said list had been set
aside by the SAT accepting the allegations of the applicants
therein that the list had not been appropriately prepared,
neither the respondent nor the High Court ought to have placed
reliance on the same when the reselection list prepared afresh
Page 10 of 11
was acted upon for appointment.
15. In that view, the order passed by the High Court cannot
be sustained. The orders dated 20.03.2018 and 06.12.2018
passed by the High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No.22713/2014
and in Review Petition No.230/2018 are set aside. The appeals
are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………….J.
(M.R. SHAH)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
September 27, 2021
Page 11 of 11
