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 ORS. versus SUKANTI DEBI

Decided
2 December 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 434 · 1996 INSC 1427
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

p. 434, margin E

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack, made on March 2, 1995 in OA No. 1499/93. Though the respondent was served on September 30, 1996, she did not appear. Therefore, we adjourned the matter by pcoceecijngs dated October 28, 1996 to see whether she appears or is represented through counsel. Even today, she has not appeared.

p. 434, margin F

The only question is : whether the direction issued by the Tribunal to appoint him in future vacancy is valid in law? It is seen that the third respondent came to be appointed in a third post as Hindi Teacher which was not sanctioned post; nor was the need for such an appointment recognised by the management. It is also stated that he was not qualified for the post. We need not go into the question of his qualification. Suffice it would be to state that the Government in their letter dated May 1, 1992 have stated as under :

pp. 434–435, margin G

"I am directed to invite a reference to Go\t. Education Department Letter No. 13409, dated 17.3.1992 and to inform you that Hindi being a non-Examinable subject in M.E. Schools, there is no need to allow the existing Hindi teachers in M.E. Schoo], to continue further. Therefore, it was decided that the Hindi teachers who are ... in M.E. Schools will be adjusted against the third post of teachers in M.E. Schools provided they possessed Matric C.T. Qualification. In case any of them not ... C. T. Qualification he should be given chance tc acquire C.T. Qualification as in service candidate by summer vacation ... he will be allowed untrained scale of pay till then. In case any one is non-Matric he should be given the chance to acquire an equal C.T. Qualification. In case of former, the qualification would be acquired within three years for issue of order and in case the of non-Matriculation qualification

p. 435, margin B

should be acquired within period of Five Years."

p. 435, margin D

In view of the above, the Tribunal was not right in giving the directi on.

p. 435, margin D

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 435, margin E