Dismissed

Dr.S.Sanyasi Rao v. State

Orissa HC13 Dec 2018WP(C)/10103/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a writ of prohibition issued by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had refused to interfere when a bench of promoters sought promotion to Associate Professors post-government takeover because prior appointments lacked approval.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. All connected miscellaneous cases are disposed of.

Dr.S.Sanyasi Rao Vs State — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10103 of 2005

¶2

13.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶3

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment/order dated 04.2.2005, passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in O.A.No.1623 of 2001 (O.A.No.2979(C) of 1994), under Annexure-17, dismissing the original application filed by the appellants-petitioners.

¶4

We have perused the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. On a perusal of the said order, it is seen that learned Tribunal while considering the case of the petitioner for further promotion has discussed the law as well as the evidence available on record. In our considered opinion, learned Tribunal while considering the matter has rightly observed at paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, which are as under:

¶5

“12. As stated earlier, the State Government took over the management of respondent no.3-College with effect from 12.5.1994 pursuant to the resolution of the Governing Body dated 26.3.1994. The Govt. resolution dated 20.1.1994 enclosed to the counter as Annexure-C relates to the taking over the management of respondent no.3-College by Govt. Para.(ii) of Annexure-C empowered the State Govt. to offer ad hoc appointments to the staff both teaching and non-teaching who were qualified and otherwise eligible for appointment under the Govt. and are employed in College and Hospital on the date of taking over for a period not exceeding one year in each case and they shall be treated as new entrants to the Govt. service.

¶6

-2-

¶7

13. In the instant case the appointment of the applicants as Associate Professors on promotion was not approved by the respondent no.2 on the date of taken over or thereafter as they were not given promotion on selection by a Selection Board to be constituted with the approval of the Government. Hence, they were not eligible to be taken as Associate Professors after the College was taken over by the Government. After taken over they were appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis as Lecturers which had received the approval of the respondent no.2 and the said appointment was regularised in consultation with the O.P.S.C. vide Annexure-E dated 16.10.2000. Similar such question came up for consideration in O.A.No.555/95 filed by a Demonstrator of the respondent no.3-College to declare his appointment as an Associate-Professor with effect from 4.8.1992 and to modify the Deed of Transfer by showing him as Associate Professor. The said O.A. was dismissed by an order of the Two Member Bench dated 29.4.1993 on the ground that the applicant had no requisite qualification and his appointment as Associate Professor was not approved by the respondent no.2 before the College was taken over by the Govt. pursuant to Resolution dated 20.1.1994. In the instant case the appointment of the applicants as Associate Professors on promotion given by the Governing Body few months before the taken over of the College was not approved by the respondent no.2. Moreover, they were not appointed as such by a Selection Board constituted with the approval of the Government as per Govt. Resolution dated 18.8.1979 (Anx.B). The learned counsel for the applicants contended that some promotion posts of Sambalpur Homeopathic Medical-College were included in the Deed of Transfer without the approval of the respondent no.2 and hence, the promotional posts of Associate Professor to which the applicants held before taken over should have

¶8

-3-

¶9

been shown in the Deed of Transfer even if the said promotion was not approved by the respondent no.2. The xerox copy of details of appointment of teaching staff in Orissa-Medical College of Homeopathy & Research, Sambalpur enclosed to the rejoinder as Annexure-13 has been relied upon in support of the said contention. We have carefully perused Annexure13. There is no whisper in Annexure-13, if any body without the approval of the respondent no.2 was appointed to the post which he held on promotion before taken over by the Government. As such, the contention raised to grant relief by given the above example deserves no consideration.

¶10

14. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we find no merit in the Original Application which is accordingly dismissed. No cost. ”

¶11

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal and find no case is made out. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

All connected Misc. Cases/I.As. are accordingly disposed of.

¶13

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶14

…………………..……… ( Biswanath Rath) Judge

¶15

Dr.S.Sanyasi Rao v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.S.Sanyasi Rao v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samina Bibi @ Samina Bano Vs State of Orissa

Bunu @ Bikram Keshari Dhal Vs State of Orissa

Jagan Jena Vs State of Orissa

Niranjan Guin Vs State of Odisha

Niranjan Guin Vs State of Odisha

Sukanti Behera Vs State of Odisha,Home Dept