A PIL challenging the irregular appointment of primary school teachers in Jagatsinghpur, filed 25 years after the selection, was dismissed. The Court held that PIL is not maintainable in service matters absent a quo warranto plea, noting inordinate delay and lack of party locus.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 1966 of 2017
Hansmina Kumari Das and others …. Petitioners -versus…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the cases:
For Petitioners : Mr. Ramakanta Sarangi, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. B.A. Prusty
Standing Counsel for S&ME Dept.
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
JUDGMENT
05.08.2022
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. Four residents of Jagatsinghpur District have filed this Public
Interest Litigation (PIL), complaining of a large number of
irregularities committed in the appointment of Teachers for
Primary Schools pursuant to a Resolution dated 12 th March, 1996
of the School and Mass Education Department (S&ME),
Government of Odisha. In particular, it is alleged that the merit
list of eligible Teachers for appointment as Primary Teachers in
Jagatsinghpur included less meritorious candidates by-passing
those who had secured more marks in the selection process.
W.P.(C) No.1966 of 2017 Page 1 of 6
“This writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation by four petitioners with the primary prayer for a direction to the opposite parties to take immediate steps to remove the disqualified Primary School Teachers appointed in different Primary Schools of Jagatsinghpur district from their respective posts. One of such teachers has been arrayed as opposite party No.9, whereas the prayer made in the writ petition that a large number of such teachers who have been appointed, are not qualified.
W.P.(C) No.1966 of 2017 Page 2 of 6
Firstly, it is not known from perusal of the writ petition as to who the petitioners are, as nothing has been stated in the petition with regard to locus of the petitioners. Secondly, since the matter relates to service of teachers, the writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation would not be maintainable. Thirdly, the selection is said to have been made from the select list of the year 1997. The petitioners have challenged the same after 2 decades in 2017.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment.
List it after four weeks.”
W.P.(C) No.1966 of 2017 Page 3 of 6
since the prayers concern the legality of the employment of several Primary School teachers in Jagatsinghpur pursuant to a process that began nearly three decades ago in 1996. The present Petitioners did not participate in the said selection. The select list was published some time in 2006 and appointments were made. Yet, the Petitioners chose to wait for over 11 years to file this petition challenging the appointments.
W.P.(C) No.1966 of 2017 Page 4 of 6
W.P.(C) No.1966 of 2017 Page 5 of 6
delay of nearly 11 years in approaching the Court to challenge the said appointments made way back in 2006.
costs.
(S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S. Behera/ Jr. Steno
W.P.(C) No.1966 of 2017 Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable where petitioners seek to challenge illegal appointments of school teachers made decades ago in service matters.
Whether the delayed approach of the petitioners, rising almost 25 years after the selection process, is explainable.
Whether the reliefs sought, which do not mention 'quo warranto', qualify as an exception to the general rule against PIL in service matters.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei SahooDistinguished¶14
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo AIR 2014 SC 246 · Who else cites this
Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶19
Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 707 · Who else cites this
Dr. Duryodhan Sahoo v. Jitendra Kumar MishraReferred¶19
Dr. Duryodhan Sahoo v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' AssociationReferred¶19
B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association (2006) 11 SCC 731 · Who else cites this
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 · Who else cites this
Hansmina Kumari Das
State of Odisha
Dr. S. Muralidhar
R.K. Pattanaik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
