Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF KERALA versus MOTHER ANASTHASIA, SUPERIOR GENERAL AND ORS.

Decided
6 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 1013 · 1997 INSC 113
Also cited as
  • (1997) 10 SCC 79 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in O.P. Nos. 868177 and 4934/76.

p. 1013, margin F

The admitted position is that Smt. Mary Lily, the third· respondent, was temporarily appointed in a leave vacancy for a period of three months effective from January 2, 1974 in St. Joseph's College for Women, Irinjalakuda. After the expiry of the period, she ceased to be a lecturer. In 1976, when a permanent vacancy had arisen advertisement was made for recruitment. Pursuant thereto, ~hen 27 candidates including the third respondent had applied for and called for selection therein Smt. Mariamma Chacko, fourth respondent was selected. The third respondent challenged the validity of the selection and appointment of Smt. Mariamma on the ground that under Section 57(6) of Calicut University Act, 1975, she had preferential claim for appointment since she was a discharged employee. Sub-section (6) of Section 57 reads as under:

pp. 1013–1014, margin F

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (i) and ( 4) a teacher discharged from a private college on or after the 14th day of March, 1974, due to abolition of a course of study in that college or for any other reason except disciplinary action against him shill be given reference in the matter of future appointments in the private college or, as the case may be, or any of the private colleges under the management of the educational agency within the university area."

p. 1014, margin A

(Emphasis supplied)

p. 1014, margin C

A reading thereof would indicate that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i) and Section 4 of Section 57, a teacher discharged from a private college on or after March 14, 1974 due to abolition of a course of study in that college or for any other reason except on disciplinary action against him, shall be given preference in further appointments in a private college or any of the private colleges under the Management of the educational agency within the university area. Admittedly, the third respondent was appointed in a leave vacancy for a short period of three months. The intendment of sub-section (6) appears to be only that when permanent teacher or teacher appointed on a regular basis is discharged from service due to abolition of the course of study in that college or for any other reason, obviously, other analogous causes other then disciplinary action, such a teacher who held the post was given preferential treatment for future appointment. A temporary teacher in a leave vacancy cannot be considered as discharged nor claimed the status as discharged employee. Discharge would connote for any other reason ujus dem generis due to abolition of the post or course of study or such similar circumstances except for discharge due to misconduct. Such a teacher only will be eligible to set up preferential claim for appointment but not a teacher who fortuitously came to be appointed in a leave vacancy much less for a limited period.

p. 1014, margin C

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. G.N. Appeals disposed of.

p. 1014, margin G