Orissa High Court
Sribatsa Kumar Mohapatra, Dr. And Ors. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 21 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)1LLJ214ORI
Author: I.M. Quddusi
Bench: I.M. Quddusi, N. Prusty
JUDGMENT I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. These are two sets of the writ petitions, out of which first five writ petitions have been tiled against the judgment and order dated March 18, 2005 and last two writ petitions have been filed against different common judgment and order dated March 3, 2005. Both the orders and judgments have been passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and Cuttack respectively in different original applications.
2. Since in all these cases, the impugned orders are based on interpretation of "teaching experience" as defined in 3(k) of the Orissa Medical Education Service (Recruitment) Rules 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1979"), they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. In first set of the writ petitions containing five cases, O.A. No. 2052 (C) of 2001 was filed by the private opposite parties of the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 4670 of 2005, namely, Dr. Sarojkanta Sahoo, Dr. K.C.. Mohapatra, Dr. Braja Mohan Mishra, Dr. Y. Tej Kumar and Dr. Jagadananda Mishra with a prayer to quash the order dated December 18, 1998 giving promotion to the petitioner with effect from September 18, 1992 and taking him into the zone of consideration which was allowed by the Tribunal. O.A. No. 1712 of 2002 was filed by Dr. S.K. Das, opposite party in W.P.(C) No. 4671 of 2005 to quash the order dated July 2, 2002 and O.A. No. 1450(C) of 2004 was filed by Dr. P.K. Rath opposite party in W.P.(C) No. 4672 of 2005 to quash the recommendation of D.P.C. in favour of the writ petitioner Dr. S.K. Mohapatra and O.A. No. 2388(C) of 2001 was filed by Dr. P.K. Rath, opposite party in W.P.(C) No. 4673 of 2005 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and other relief and O.A. No. 2522 of 2003 was filed by the opposite parties in W.P. (C) No. 4674 of 2005, namely, Dr. Braja Mohan Mishra, Dr. Y. Tej Kumar and Dr. S.K. Sahoo challenging the seniority and promotion of the petitioner for the post of Asst. Professor as well as professor.
4. The dates of initial appointment of the. petitioners and private opposite parties as ' Junior Teachers are given as under:
Sl. No. Name Dates of Initial appointment
1. Dr. S.K. Mohapatra (On June 8, 1984 (on Ad hoc basis)
On September 18, 1986 through the OPSC
(placed at Sl. No. 1)
2. Dr. P.K. Rath On September 10, 1986 through the OPSC
(placed at Sl. 3.)
3. Dr. Braja Mohan Mishra On November 16, 1988 through OPSC
4. Dr. Y. Tej Kumar On November 16, 1988 through OPSC
5. Dr. S.K. Sahoo On September 10, 1986 through the OPSC
6. Dr. Jagadananda Mishra On December 12, 1989
5. Dr. S.K. Mohapatra was promoted to the post of Asst. Professor on March 14, 1994 but he was given pro forma promotion with effect from September 18, 1992, which was challenged in the above-mentioned O.As. The Tribunal quashed the promotion order of Dr. S.K. Mohapatra with effect from September 18, 1992 to the post of Asst. Professor, Surgery and further on that basis, the Tribunal has held that he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Professor as he had not acquired "teaching experience" of at least ten years as an Assistant Professor as per Rule 6(5) of the Rules, 1979 and the Selection Board was wrong in recommending him to the post of Professor, Surgery. Further, the Tribunal declared Dr. P.K. Rath, senior to Dr. S.K. Mohapatra in the rank of Assistant Professor, Surgery and held that Dr. Rath was eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor/Professor along with other five applicants in O.As. No. 1712(C) of 2002, O.A. No. 2522(C) of 2003 and O.A. No. 2052(C) of 2001 and directed the State Government to refix the inter se seniority of the Asst. Professor, Surgery on the basis of the impugned order.
6. From the above, it reveals that the petitioner, Dr. S.K. Mohapatra, who was appointed to the post of Junior Teacher/Lecturer on ad hoc basis on June 8, 1984, was appointed pursuant to an advertisement made for open selection by the OPSC on regular basis vide notification dated September 10, 1986 and was kept in merit list above Dr. P.K. Rath. Thereafter the petitioner was allowed to accept an assignment on deputation under the kingdom of Saudi Arabia initially for a period of one year from the date of relief, i.e. January 29, 1989 vide order-dated January 19, 1989 passed by the State Government with certain terms and conditions. Further his period of deputations was extended for a period of four years w.e.f. January 29, 1990.
7. On January 17, 1992 a D.P.C. was held to consider the cases of promotion of the eligible Junior Teachers/Lecturers to the post of Asst. Professor. The petitioner Dr. S.K. Mohapatra was selected though he was on deputation at that time. Dr. P.K. Rath and Dr. S.K Sahoo as well as other private opposite parties were not taken into zone of consideration. But his promotion order was not issued at that time. After knowing that he was not given promotion, he expressed his willingness to come back from deputation in 1992 and he was informed that he would be given promotion after he returned back from deputation, i.e., after completion of deputation period and a letter was issued by the State Government to the Director on February 26, 1993 in this regard. His tenure of deputation was completed in January 1994, but he was relieved by the borrowing country only in December, 1995 and he subsequently joined in his Parent Department itself in the year 1995. In the year 1995, a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against him for overstay. But thereafter, the same was dropped and the period of his overstay was regularized. It was alleged by the applicants of the O.A. that he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty and rendered private service also in Janakidas Kapur Memorial Hospital at Sonepat for the period from June 8, 1996 to December 4, 1996. But as the said proceeding against him was dropped regularizing his period of unauthorized absence by the Government, he shall be deemed to have continued for all the periods of unauthorized absence in the service of the S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack.
8. The stand of private opposite parties in the instant writ petitions is that as the petitioner had not fulfilled the 'teaching experience' for the posts of Asst. Professor/Professor, his promotion to those posts is illegal.
9. In the second set of two writ petitions O.A No. 3377(C) of 2003, which was filed by Dr. Snehalata Das, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8664 of 2005 praying for quashing the order of the Government of Orissa in the Health and Family Welfare Department dated December 18, 2003 promoting Dr. Niranjan Mohanty petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3998 of 2005 to the post of Professor in Paediatrics and directing her promotion to the said post, the Tribunal held that the appointment of Dr. Niranjan Mohanty is illegal as he was not eligible for consideration on the date when D.P.C. was held and quashed the impugned promotion order and directed the opposite parties to ascertain as to who, out of the five Associate Professors, is eligible for the said post and thereafter reconsider their cases for promotion keeping in view the observations made in the body of the judgment and the Recruitment Rules. However, the Tribunal has not issued any direction for promotion of Dr. Snehalata Das. Therefore, both of them have filed the writ petitions against the impugned order of the Tribunal.
10. The brief facts of the case in the second set of writ petitions, were that both the petitioners, i.e. Dr. Niranjan Mohanty and Dr. Snehalata Das were appointed as Junior Teachers (subsequently designated as lecturers) on the recommendation of the Orissa Public Service Commission vide Govt. Notification dated March 15, 1985. In the said order, Dr. Niranjan Mohanty was shown at Sl. No. 1 and Dr. Snehalata Das at Sl. 2 in order of merit. Therefore, there is no question of any dispute that Dr. N. Mohanty was senior to Dr. Snehalata Das in the post of Junior Teacher/Lecturer.
11. Thereafter vide Government Order dated August 3, 1991 of the Government of Orissa in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Dr. Niranjan Mohanty, who was posted as Lecturer in Paediatrics at S.V.P. Sishu Bhawan, Cuttack was allowed to accept the foreign assignment in Saudi Arabia for a period of one year from the date of his actual relief from his duties. In consequence of the same, Dr. Mohanty proceeded for foreign assignment on August 8, 1991. During the period of his foreign assignment Dr. Snehalata Das was promoted on Ad hoc basis as Asst. Professor, Paediatrics on August 3, 1992 for a period of one year with effect from the date she assumed charge or till the appointment was made in consultation with the O.P.S.C. or until further orders whichever earlier. Thereafter, the period of one year's deputation of foreign assignment was further extended up to August 7, 1996 with the condition that the period of such Foreign Service will not count towards the leave under the State Government and that the period of absence would be treated as on Foreign Service. After coming back from deputation from foreign service. Dr. Niranjan Mohanty was promoted and appointed as Asst. Professor in Paediatrics on Ad hoc basis for a period of one year with effect from the date of his assumption of charge vide Govt. order dated November 21, 1997. But subsequently on February 11, 1998, Dr. N. Mohanty's promotion was antedated to August 3, 1992, i.e. from the date when his junior Dr. Snehalata Das was given promotion without any arrear of salary and financial benefit and his seniority was fixed above Dr. Snehalata Das. Thereafter, Dr. N. Mohanty was further promoted as an Associate Professor on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till his appointment was made regular in consultation with O.P.S.C. or until further orders whichever earlier vide order dated April 12, 2002. Thereafter, Dr. Snehalata Das was also promoted on ad hoc basis as Associate Professor with the similar condition vide Govt. order dated July 17, 2002. Subsequently vide Govt. Notification dated December 18, 2003, Dr. Niranjan Mohanty was promoted as Professor, Paediatrics on ad hoc basis for a period of one year with effect from the date of assumption of the charge or till his appointment was made regular in consultation with the O.P.S.C. or until further orders whichever earlier. The promotion of Dr. Niranjan Mohanty to the post of Professor was quashed by the Tribunal in the aforementioned O.A. on the ground that he was not having requisite experience for the post of Professor and as such he was not eligible to be considered for the same.
12. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) vide their letter dated June 20, 1991 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments and Union Territories issued consolidated instructions relating to Foreign Assignment of Indian Experts, in which the instructions mentioned at 14.5 and 14.6 being relevant for this case are quoted hereunder:
14.5 Since deputation of Indian official abroad contributes to mutual goodwill and understanding between India and the foreign country concerned, it would be largely in the public interest, if, as a rule, the lien of Government employee and public sector employee selected for a foreign assignment is retained.
14.6 The State Governments are advised that their employees may be released for service abroad on foreign service terms, in the public interest, after retaining the applicant's lien and protecting his seniority. However, the State Government may allow their employees to go abroad in accordance with the rules which are enforced and applicable to the employees.
The above-mentioned instructions were issued by the Government of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Govt.
13. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions of Rules, 1979 which are quoted below:
xx xx xx
3. DefinitionsIn these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-
*** *** ***
(e) "Junior teaching posts' means the posts of Registrar, Clinical Tutor, Demonstrator, Junior Surgeon, Junior Physician, Refractionist, Assistant Radiologist, Epidemicologist, Resident pathologist, Curator, Assistant Dental Surgeon, Assistant Anaesthetist, Anaesthetist, Anaesthetic Registrar in any of the Medical Colleges of the State and any other teaching posts which may be declared by the Government to be junior teaching posts from time to time;
(e-I) "Lecturer" means a person appointed to a junior teaching post
(f) "Selection Board" means the Selection Board appointed under Rule 3A.
(g) "Selection Committee" means the Selection Committee appointed by the Government from time to time in between the period from December 1, 1960 to September 22, 1973 to select persons for appointment to the junior teaching posts;
(h) "senior teaching posts" mean the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors of Specialities and Higher Specialities of the Medical Colleges and any other posts in the Medical Colleges which may be so declared by the Government;
(i) "Service" means the Orissa Medical Education Service consisting of Junior and senior teaching posts.
The strength of the Service shall be as may be determined by Government from time to time.
xx xx xx
(k) "teaching experience" means the period of service rendered in a teaching post or posts in any Speciality or Higher Speciality in a teaching institution recognized by the Indian Medical Council to be reckoned from the date of appointment to the Junior or senior teaching post, in consultation with the Commission as the case may be:
Provided that 50 per cent of the period spent, after obtaining requisite post-graduate degree, in research schemes under the Indian Council of Medical Research or Council of Scientific and Industrial Research or equivalent body shall be counted as teaching experience, xx xx xx
5. Appointment of Assistant Professors - (1) Appointment to the posts of Assistant Professsor in the service shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15 by promotion from amongst the lecturers on the basis of "merit with due regard to seniority".
Provided that if suitable candidates with requisite academic qualifications and experience are not available in any specialty or higher specialty. Government may appoint any other eligible person directly as Assistant Professor in consultation with the commission.
Explanation - In the expression ' 'merit with due regard to seniority", the emphasis is on merit. A senior person, who is less than average or unfit, cannot have a right to be selected for promotion in preference to his Juniors who are appreciably more meritorious. On the contrary, a Junior who is outstandingly meritorious, and/or is substantially or appreciably more meritorious than a senior would have to be preferred.
(2) No person shall be eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Professor unless he-
(a) Possess a post-graduate degree or an equivalent qualification prescribed by the council in the concerned speciality or higher speciality; and
(b) has not less than three years of teaching experience as a Lecturer, after obtaining post-graduate degree in the concerned speciality or higher speciality.
XX XX XX
6. Appointment of Associate Professor and Professors-
(1) Appointment to the posts of Associate Professors in the service shall be made by selection from amongst the Assistant Professors in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15 in consultation with the Commission.
(2) Appointment to the post of Professors in the service shall be made by selection from amongst Associate Professors and, in case no Associate Professors arc available, from, amongst the Assistant Professors, on the recommendation of the Selection Board and in consultation with the Commission (3) In making selection of Associate Professors and Professors the following criteria shall be taken into consideration:
(i) Merit:
(ii) Efficiency in teaching;
(iii)(a) For selection to the post of Associate' Professor an Assistant Professor must have a minimum of four research publications indexed in Index Medicus/National Journal;
(b) For selection to the post of Professor, an Associate Professor or Assistant Professor must have a minimum of four research publications indexed in Index Medicus/National Journal and one research publication in an international journal.
(iv) Performance and Service Records; and
(v) seniority in the rank of Assistant Professor/Associate Professor.
(4) No person shall be eligible to be appointed as Associate Professor of a particular speciality unless he/she has acquired at least five years teaching experience as Assistant Professor or eight years teaching experience as Assistant Professor and Lecturer taken together in the respective speciality in a recognized Medical College.
Provided that to be appointed as Associate Professor of a particular higher speciality or super speciality, the minimum teaching experience required will be 2 years as an Assistant professor in the respective higher speciality instead of 5 years.
(5) No person shall be eligible to be appointed as Professor of a particular speciality or higher speciality unless he/she has acquired teaching experience of at least four years as Associate Professor or nine years as Assistant professor and Associate Professor taken together or ten years as Assistant Professor in the respective speciality or higher speciality, as the case may be.
(8) Inter se seniority of (Lecturers):- (1) Inter sesenionty in the rank of (lecturers) of a speciality or higher speciality shall be reckoned from the dates of their 0 appointment to the posts:
Provided that where the Commission has recommended any placements, the seniority shall, unless otherwise directed by Government, be in accordance with the placements given by the Commission.
Explanation - The date of appointment shall be deemed to be the date on which the notification relating to the appointment is issued by Government in the consultation with the Commission.
xx xx xx
14. The first question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioners in two sets of writ petitions namely, Dr. S.K. Mohapatra and Dr. Niranjan Mohanty had adequate teaching experience as required under Rule 5(2) of Rules, 1979 for the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the time when the Selection Boards considered their cases of promotion for the respective posts. In this regard it is necessary to have a look to the definition of "teaching experience" given in Rule 3(k) of the Rules, 1979, according to which, the period of service rendered in a teaching post or posts in any speciality or higher speciality in a teaching institution recognized by the Indian Medical Council is reckoned from the date of appointment to those posts, in consultation with the Commission. Therefore for the purpose of fulfillment of qualification of three years' "teaching experience" for promotion, it is necessary that (1) a Junior Teacher/Lecturer should render service in a. teaching post in a teaching f institution, (ii) that teaching institution should be recognized by the Indian Medical Council and (iii) that three years period of service should be counted from the date of appointment made only in consultation with the Commission and not from the date of ad hoc appointment.
15. The petitioner, Dr. Mohapatra was appointed on ad hoc basis on June 8, 1984 through open selection after passing out the Selection test on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Board. Subsequently, he was given appointment on the recommendation of the OPSC vide notification dated September 18, 1986. Therefore, in view of the definition of "teaching experience" the past service rendered by him on ad hoc basis cannot be reckoned. His "teaching experience" can only be counted from the date of recommendation of the OPSC. Hence, his appointment for the purpose of reckoning the teaching experience for the purpose of Rule 3(k) would be counted from September 18, 1986 and thus he would be completing three years of "teaching experience" on September 17, 1989. The Selection Board for consideration of the promotion to the post of Assistant Professor was held on January 17, 1992, and as such in the opinion of this Court, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor on that date. In the merit list of the OPSC for the post of junior teacher/lecturer, the petitioner was shown senior to Mr. Rath as he was placed at Sl. 1, whereas Dr. P.K. Rath was placed at Sl. 3, therefore, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner in the post of Junior Teacher/Lecturer was senior to Dr. P.K. Rath. Since the other private opposite parties were appointed subsequently on the basis of recommendation of the OPSC they, cannot be held to be senior to the petitioner, Dr. S.K. Mohaptra in the post of Junior Teacher, in view of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1979, as quoted above.
16. Mr. B.R. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that Rule 59 of the Orissa Service Code puts a restriction that the Government Servant shall not be deputed out of India without previous sanction of the Government. In the present case without getting the previous sanction the petitioner has been deputed out side India, i.e., Saudi Arabia on foreign assignment service. Sub-clause (C) of Rule 212 states that deputation to foreign service is not permissible unless the duties to be performed after the transfer are for public reason to be rendered by a Government Servant and therefore, the foreign assignment cannot be treated as assignment on deputation and as such that period could not have been counted towards 'teaching experience'. But as already mentioned in the body of the judgment, the sanction was granted by the State Government initially for a period of one year to foreign assignment on deputation vide order dated January 19, 1989, which was further extended for a period of four years with effect from January 29, 1990 as per order dated April 9, 1990.
17. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties have further given stress that the period of deputation and unauthorized absence cannot be counted towards teaching experience - as the petitioner did not hold the teaching classes. In this regard, again the definition "teaching experience" given in Rule 3(k) of the Rules, 1979 is liable to be perused. According to the said rule for the purpose of counting the teaching experience, the period of service rendered in a teaching post is to be reckoned from the date of appointment in a teaching institution recognized by the Indian Medical Council. The petitioner was given appointment on the recommendation of the OPSC in the year 1986 as mentioned above. By the order of Government the lien of the petitioner's service in the post of teacher remained to continue when he had been on deputation or on leave which was regularized later by the Government. Therefore, for all purposes, he shall be deemed to have rendered service in a teaching post of Junior Lecturer in the Medical Colleges recognized by the Indian Medical Council consequently. In the definition of "teaching experience" it has been nowhere provided that it would be necessary to conduct teaching classes for reckoning the teaching experience. The only requirement is that a person should render service in a teaching post. Therefore, if a person continued in a teaching post retaining his lien, it cannot be said that he was not in service in a teaching post, in case of his leave or deputation period.
18. Therefore, even if a person remains on leave, his leave period cannot be excluded in reckoning the teaching experience. The definition given in Rule 3(k) of the Rules 1979 is different from the actual teaching experience and related to the service period in a teaching post only. Therefore, in our opinion the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in reckoning the teaching experience of the petitioner excluding his period of leave/deputation and thereby holding that he was not having 3 years teaching experience as required under Rules 5(2)(b) of the Rules, 1979 for the purpose of getting promotion to the post of Asst. Professor.
19. Besides the above, it is also a matter of consideration that all the private opposite parties were juniors to the petitioner, Dr. S.K. Mohapatra in the post of lecturer as already mentioned above and as such if the petitioners were given promotion to the post of Asst. Professor before the promotion of his juniors there cannot be said to be any illegality rather it would have been violative of Article 16, if the right of promotion from the date of promotion of the next junior to the petitioner would have been denied to him, even on the finding him fit for promotion by the Selection Board in making promotion to the post of Asst. Professor with effect from September 18, 1992.
20. Now, we come to the question of next promotion of the petitioner, S.K. Mohapatra to the post of Professor for which the minimum essential teaching experience as provided in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 should be at least ten years as an Assistant Professor and eight years as an Assistant Professor and Associate Professor taken together. Since the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on September 18, 1992 and never remained in. the post of Associate Professor, it is to be seen whether he had ten years teaching experience the light of the observation made above.
21. The petitioner, Dr. Mohapatra remained as a member of Orissa Medical Service as an Assistant Professor from September 18, 1992, and therefore, he would have gained the teaching experience of ten years on September 18, 2002. Therefore, he was on that date eligible for consideration. The next D.P.C. for considering the promotion of Assistant Professor to the post of Prolessor was held on October 22, 2003 and it has recommended the name of petitioner.
22. In respect of second set of writ petitions, the petitioner Dr. Niranjan Mohanty was senior to Dr. Snehalata Das on the post of Junior Teacher/Lecturer. The finding of the Tribunal to the effect that Dr. Niranjan Mohanty was not having requisite teaching experience for being considered to the post of Professor, is based on wrong assertion of the fact that Dr. Niranjan Mohanty remained on deputation and the same was not liable to be counted towards his teaching experience and for the post of Professor as mentioned in Sub-rule 5 of Rule 6 of the above quoted Rules, ten years' teaching experience as an Assistant Professor or eight years as Assistant Professor and Associate Professor taken together in the respective speciality or higher speciality, as the case may be, is necessary.
23. Once the State Government have decided to grant foreign assignment on deputation, it cannot be said that the State Government had not seen the public interest while allowing the petitioner's deputation. Foreign assignment on deputation for a Medical specialist, of course, is in public interest as people in India are benefited by it in getting treatment by developed techniques in the foreign countries on returning of such medical specialist from foreign assignment. Unless a technical expert visits foreign countries and experiences new techniques, it is not possible to implement the same in India. However, it is not the function of the Court to look into the same, as it is within the domain of the Government to make policy in this regard in larger public interest.
24. Shri Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. K.B. Rajoria reported in AIR 2000 SC 1819 : (2000) 3 SCC 562 where the apex Court has interpreted the words "service" and "qualifying service" in the light of relevant rules applicable in that case i.e., Central Public Works Department (Director General Works) Recruitment Rules, 1986 to the effect that the word "service" means "qualifying service".
25. Shri Sarangi, learned Counsel for opposite parties, cited the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In one of these cases, namely, Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , it is well settled that the order of an inferior Tribunal or a statutory authority could be interfered with by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order is contrary to certain provisions of law or the authority concerned has no jurisdiction or the authority concerned took into consideration certain extraneous materials, not germane to the issue or the authority concerned failed to take into. consideration certain materials which are otherwise relevant or the finding is one on the materials which could not have been arrived at by any reasonable man.
26. In the case of Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar , the Supreme Court has laid down that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is so exercised in normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the Jurisdiction of the Courts below. The finding of fact being within the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the article is not called for.
27. Mr. Sarangi has also cited a decision reported in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. in which the Apex Court has laid down the broad general difference in exercise of jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, according to which the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin to appellate revisional or corrective jurisdiction. But the same is of no help to him. In this case the Apex Court has further held that in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior Court or Tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order, but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the inferior Court or Tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision, as the inferior Court or Tribunal should have made. Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved; the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being exercised suo motu as well.
28. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in interpreting the definition of "teaching experience" as given in Sub-rule 3(k) of the Rules, 1979 and as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
29. In the result, the first set of writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) Nos. 4670, 4671, 4672, 4673, 4674 of 2005 are allowed and the impugned order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 2052(C) of 2001, 1712(C) of 2002, 1450(C) of 2004, 2388(C) of 2001 and 2522(C) of 2003 dated March 18, 2005 is quashed. In second set of writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 3998 of 2005 is allowed and W.P.(C) No. 8664 of 2005 is dismissed being devoid of merit. The impugned order dated March 3, 2005 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3377(C) of 2003 is quashed.
30. There shall be no order as to costs.