State Of Orissa & Ors. Etc vs Niranjan Nayak & Anr. Etc
- SCC(1997) 10 SCC 112
- Neutral1997 INSC 423
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2621
- SCR[1997] 3 SCR 897
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A cut-off date prescribed by the Government for acquisition of qualifications has to be valid and bear a reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved. The High Court ought not to have allowed writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules governing the matter, and where several writ petitions raising related issues under a specific Rule are pending before the High Court, the High Court should consider all such matters afresh together rather than deciding individual petitions without regard to the governing Rules.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa Jana Kalyan Das, And S. Misra, Adv. for (P.N. Misra) Adv. for the appellants A. Mariarputham, Mohan Kr. Mohanty, Ms. eAruna Mathur and Jaya Salva, Advs. for the Respondents.
O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3180 - 3201 OF 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18921, 21506, 21516/96, 3839, 4560, 5216, 5868, 7924, 7926-28, 8456-57, 8461-67, 8774 and 9775/97) O R D E R Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made on April 19, 1995 in O.J.C. No. 1196 of 1994 and batch.
The Government has prescribed April 1, 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of the qualification and those who have acquired the qualifications prior to that date are entitled to the additional amounts as prescribed under the Rules. The High Court has allowed the writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules. It is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved.
It is stated that the teachers are relying upon Rule 9 of the 1974 Rules. We are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the High Court on the basis of Rule
9. In that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the High Court.
Taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court stand set aside. The High Court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals Implementation of the order does not stand on the way of the High Court to have the matter examined. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free