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 ORISSA AND ANR. versus DAMODAR NAYAK AND ANR.

Decided
31 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Leave Granted & Allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 456 · 1997 INSC 337
Also cited as
  • (1997) 4 SCC 560 (7 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 2071 (3 citing judgments)
  • (1997) SCC(L&S) 979 (2 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 2 other Supreme Court judgments 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.

The report of the Registry indicates that the service is complete. However, the respondents are not appearing either in person or through counsel.

p. 456, margin E

Leave granted.

p. 456, margin F

The question limited to the notice is : whether the respondent would be entitled to payment of salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the date of his acquiring the qualification? The admitted position is that respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as a lecturer in 1976. The Government issued clarification on January 5, 1987 that unqualified lectures having minimum second class, i.e., 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G. examination and appointed on or after 1.8.1977 in recognised non-Government Colleges would be eligible to receive· grant-in-aid. The Resolution dated September 13, 1983 issued by the Government prescribes the qualification for recruitment of .L'ecturers of affiliated Colleges which indicates that "candidate not holding an M. Phil degree should possess a high second Class Master's degree, i.e., 54% marks and a second class Honours/Pass in the B.A./B. ,Cpm./B:S~. examinafion.", Respondent No. 1 secured 53.9% marks, ~hich is almost equivaleiit of 54% niarks, on March 21, 1989. Therefore, the. question arises : whether the second respoµdent is entitled tO receive grant~in-aid for payirient of salary to the first respondent from the date of his acquiririg qualification or from the date of initial appointment? Admittedly, sl~ce the first respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification anci acquired the\ame only oh March 21, 1989 he will be eligible to th~ benefit of the. grant-in-aid w'.e.f. Apr1il, 1989 dnd onwards. . ·. . . . . . . .

pp. 456–457, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court passed· on April 23, 1996 in OJC No. 3548/96, to that extent stands modified. No costs. · · · T.N.A. Appeal aJ.lowed.

p. 457, margin B

. ., i'

p. 457, margin B

... ..

p. 457, margin B