Orissa High Court
Faculty Association vs Union Of India And Ors. …. Opposite … on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 15349 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Faculty Association, AIIMS, .... Petitioner(s)
Bhubaneswar & Ors.
-versus-
Union of India and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate
Along with
Mr. A. Kejriwal, Advocate
Ms. Ananya Pradhan, Advocate
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr.B. S. Rayaguru,
Sr. Panel Counsel,
Mr. Aurovindo Mohanty,
Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-12.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek a direction from this Court to
quash the Executive Director’s order treating it as unrecognized and
Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
to restore its status as a recognized service association, along with
consequential privileges, under the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The Faculty Association of AIIMS, Bhubaneswar (FAIIMS) is a
registered body under the Societies Registration Act and has
functioned at the institute since 2014. The Association has historically
carried out activities pursuant to its bye-laws and has interacted with
the AIIMS administration on faculty-related matters.
(ii) On 21.12.2023, the Executive Director of AIIMS Bhubaneswar issued
an order stating that the Faculty Association does not have formal
recognition under the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service
Associations) Rules, 1993 [CCS (RSA) Rules]. This was followed by a
subsequent communication dated 26.04.2024 reiterating the deemed
de-recognition. The AIIMS administration contends that no
documentary proof of recognition under Rules 4, 5, or 6 of the CCS
(RSA) Rules was ever submitted by the Association despite multiple
reminders and a show-cause notice issued on 05.04.2023.
(iii) The petitioners challenge the authority of the Executive Director to de-
recognise the Association, arguing that only the Central Government
has jurisdiction under the CCS (RSA) Rules to withdraw recognition.
They further assert that the process adopted lacked compliance with
principles of natural justice. AIIMS, on the other hand, maintains that
the Executive Director, by virtue of being Secretary of the Institute
and Governing Body under Section 11(2) of the AIIMS Act and
Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
Regulation 35 of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019, acted within his
jurisdiction.
(iv) The matter was initially brought before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, which declined jurisdiction. The petitioners then filed
W.P.(C) No. 7978 of 2024 before the High Court, which directed the
Executive Director to consider the petitioners’ representation. The
representation was considered, and the impugned order dated
26.04.2024 was passed by the Executive Director.
(v) The last election of the Faculty Association office bearers was held on
09.07.2022, for a two-year term under Clause 7.3 of the bye-laws.
While the petitioners claim that ongoing legal proceedings and
administrative restrictions impeded further elections, the AIIMS
administration contests the legal validity of the petitioners’ authority
post-expiry of the two-year term and notes the absence of any formal
update to the Registrar of Societies.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Executive Director lacks statutory authority under the CCS (RSA)
Rules, 1993 to de-recognise a service association. Rule 8 clearly vests
such power solely with the Central Government, contingent upon
notice and opportunity. The term “deemed de-recognition” is legally
non-existent, and any such punitive action is ultra vires and void ab
initio.
Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
(ii) The Executive Director’s actions infringe upon the petitioners’
fundamental right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) of the
Constitution. The CCS (RSA) Rules were enacted to protect such
rights, and the denial of recognition, restriction of association
activities, and show cause proceedings violate both constitutional
protections and statutory safeguards.
(iii) The impugned actions are retaliatory in nature, stemming from the
Association’s raising of legitimate concerns regarding institutional
governance, including corruption, drug shortages, and irregular
appointments. These measures amount to a colourable exercise of
power intended to silence dissenting voices.
(iv) AIIMS has previously issued written communications (e.g., letter
dated 13.08.2021) affirming recognition of FAIIMS. Salary deductions
towards Association membership, official file notings, and the
Association’s filing of income tax returns further substantiate its
continued recognition. The petitioners’ tenure has not legally expired
due to the sub-judice nature of the matter, supported by judicial
precedents.
(v) The essential function of de-recognising a service association cannot
be delegated to an institutional authority like the Executive Director,
especially when the parent statute does not authorize it.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
(i) The writ petition is alleged to be based on disputed facts such as
recognition status and election validity, which can only be adjudicated
through civil proceedings requiring evidence. Petitioners allegedly
lack locus standi due to expiry of tenure and absence of a valid
mandate or resolution.
(ii) FAIIMS’s claim to recognition is termed as merely oral and
unsupported by any official recognition order or document.
Occasional administrative interactions (e.g., salary deductions or
meeting invitations) do not amount to formal recognition under CCS
(RSA) Rules.
(iii) The decision of 21.12.2023 and the follow-up order dated 26.04.2024
were passed only after show-cause notice and opportunity to be
heard. In the absence of recognition, the Executive Director validly
declared the Association as deemed derecognized to maintain
institutional discipline.
(iv) The Association is alleged to have violated Rules 5-7 of the CCS (RSA)
Rules by directly lobbying political persons and operating without
proper election approval from the Registrar. Their conduct is said to
be unauthorized, disruptive, and contrary to Rule 6, which prohibits
political influence.
(v) The 2022 election result has not been submitted to or approved by the
Registrar under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. In absence
of such compliance, the petitioners’ authority to represent FAIIMS is
questioned.
Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
(vi) Recognition under CCS (RSA) Rules must be formally issued by the
Director, who is empowered as Secretary of the Governing Body. In
the absence of a written order of recognition from the Director, the
Association cannot claim protected status or enforce fundamental
rights under Article 19(1)(c).
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. From the pleadings and submissions, the principal questions that arise
are: (i) Whether FAIIMS enjoys any legal status as a “recognized”
service association under the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, and if not,
whether it can claim any enforceable right via writ proceedings to
prevent the opposite parties from treating it as unrecognized; (ii)
Whether the Executive Director of AIIMS had the authority to issue
the impugned “de-recognition” order under Rule 8 of the CCS (RSA)
Rules, and the effect of any procedural irregularity in this regard; (iii)
Whether the action of the opposite parties violates the petitioner’s
fundamental rights, particularly the right to form associations under
Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution; and (iv) To what relief, if any, the
petitioner is entitled. These points are addressed in turn.
7. It is undisputed on record that no formal recognition was ever
granted to FAIIMS under the procedure prescribed by the CCS (RSA)
Rules, 1993. These Rules, framed by the Central Government in
exercise of executive powers governing service conditions, lay down a
detailed mechanism for according recognition to service associations
Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
of government employees. In brief, Rule 3 defines the scope, and
Rules 4 to 6 stipulate the eligibility conditions and process for
recognition. One key requirement is that the Association must
represent a certain proportion of the employees of the category
concerned, for example, at least 35% of the employees in that category
for primary recognition. The Association must apply to the
Government with its memorandum of association, bye-laws, and a list
of members, and it must furnish an undertaking to fulfill conditions
such as democratic elections of office-bearers, financial accountability,
and adherence to the Constitution and laws. Recognition, if granted, is
communicated through a formal order or certificate issued by the
competent authority (usually the concerned Ministry or Department
of the Central Government) and is typically valid for a fixed period,
subject to renewal upon verification of continued support and
compliance.
8. In the present case, FAIIMS has been unable to produce any order or
notification of the Central Government recognizing it under these
Rules. There is no evidence that FAIIMS ever secured the mandatory
35% membership of the relevant cadre or that it ever applied through
proper channels for recognition. In fact, it was fairly evident that the
petitioner Association could not produce any tangible or formal proof
of recognition granted under the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. While it
sought to rely on past administrative conduct to suggest de facto
acceptance, the absence of a statutory recognition order fatally
undermines the foundation of its claim. In law, one cannot be ‘de-
Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
recognized’ if one was never recognized in the first place. Any
enforcement of rights through a writ of mandamus requires the
claimant to establish an existing legal right. Here, absent formal
recognition, FAIIMS cannot point to any statutory or legal right to
continue as a recognized body. The entire edifice of the petitioner’s
challenge, which presumes that it enjoyed a recognized status that
was withdrawn, collapses on this foundational fact.
9. Given the lack of statutory recognition, the petitioner’s plea for relief
under Article 226 must fail at the threshold. The writ jurisdiction of
this Court, especially in matters of mandamus, is meant to enforce
existing legal rights or performance of legal duties. The CCS(RSA)
Rules, 1993 do not confer any legal status on an unrecognized
association; on the contrary, they explicitly bar unrecognized
associations from certain privileges, such as participation in official
consultative machinery or use of government facilities.
10. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of D.K. Chhangani and Ors. v. NityaRanjan
Mukherjee and Ors.1wherein the Court underscored the statutory
framework laid down under the Central Civil Services (Recognition of
Service Associations) Rules, 1993, and held that associations seeking
to represent service personnel must first obtain recognition in
accordance with the prescribed conditions under Rule 5. The relevant
excerpt is produced below:
1
(1996) 10 SCC 694.
Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
“It would, thus, be seen that if there are more than one rival
unions of the Service employees, the Government of India
have evolved a policy as to how the Service Associations
required to be recognised by the appropriate authority
should represent the interest of the members of the
respective unions. In this view, it would be open to the
appropriate union to approach the Government in the light
of the above rules and seek recognition in accordance with
law to avoid any future litigation in this behalf.”
11. The Court made it clear that the right to represent employee interests
is not inherent but is contingent upon formal recognition by the
competent authority. The recognition mechanism serves as a
regulatory filter to ensure legitimacy and representativeness, and the
absence of such recognition disentitles any association from claiming
rights or status as a representative body. The principle laid down
therein squarely applies to the present case, where the petitioner
Association has failed to establish any formal grant of recognition,
thereby undermining the legal basis of its claims.
12. The petitioner invokes the doctrine of legitimate expectation, arguing
that the Institute’s past conduct effectively “acknowledged” FAIIMS.
However, a legitimate expectation cannot override clear statutory
provisions. There can be no estoppel against a statute. The CCS (RSA)
Rules mandate formal recognition by the Government; administrative
leniency or oversight cannot create recognition in the eye of law.
Thus, whatever informal arrangements existed, they do not translate
into an enforceable legal right that this Court can protect. The absence
of recognition is sufficient to dismiss the writ petition.
Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
13. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, this Court considers it
important to address the manner in which the Executive Director
issued the impugned “de-recognition” order, so that the correct legal
procedure is clarified. Rule 8 of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 governs
withdrawal of recognition. In essence, it provides that the Central
Government (through the competent authority) may withdraw the
recognition of a service association if it fails to observe the conditions
subject to which recognition was granted, or for other specified
reasons (such as engaging in undesirable activities). The Rule
typically entails a due process: a show-cause notice to the association,
an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned decision by the
Government. In the present case, the Executive Director invoked Rule
8 and unilaterally declared FAIIMS “de-recognized.” This action, in
substance, was beyond the scope of the Executive Director’s authority.
The power to grant or withdraw recognition lies with the Central
Government, not with the head of a local unit or institute.
14. The Delhi High Court in Central PWD Engineers Association v.
Union of India2dealt with a somewhat analogous situation where a
departmental officer issued an Office Memorandum treating an
association as unrecognized without the concurrence of the Central
Government. It was held that such a unilateral action was not in
accordance with the Rules and was liable to be set aside. The relevant
excerpts are produced below:
2
2023:DHC:3622-DB.
Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36“26. The claim of petitioners is based upon the fact that the
petitioner Association was entitled to continuation of
recognition in accordance with CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 but
the same has been intentionally delayed by the respondents.
The rights and privileges of the petitioner Association and
office bearers could not be left in limbo pending the request
for continuation of recognition. It needs to be appreciated
that the steps were taken on behalf of the petitioner
Association for continuation of recognition vide various
communications though after a delay of about one year and
eight months. However, thereafter the matter was expected
to be dealt expeditiously by the respondents. The right of
continuation of a recognized Association should not have
been delayed for such a considerably long period thereby
denying the office bearers as well as the Association of the
privileges. In such an eventuality, the very object of forming
an Association of the employees stands patently denied and
becomes illusory, from the perspective of the employees
despite existence of CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993. The
respondents were expected to adhere and take expeditious
decision regarding the continuation of recognition of
petitioner Association by the Competent Authority.
We have already set aside OM dated January 09, 2019 to
the extent of treating the petitioner Association as
“unrecognized”, as the decision was not issued with the
approval of the Competent Authority as provided under the
CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 but was only taken at the level of
DG, CPWD.
This court has ample power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in appropriate cases to compel the
performance of the obligation by the respondents for
compliance of grant/continuation of recognition under CCS
(RSA) Rules, 1993. The recognition finally appears to have
been granted to the petitioner Association in 2021 for a
period of five years from the date of issue of the letter but the
decision for the period 2009 to 2021 still needs to be
reconsidered by the Competent Authority in accordance
Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
with law, in view of setting aside of OM dated January 09,
2019 to aforesaid extent. We accordingly deem it
appropriate to direct the Competent Authority/respondents
to take an appropriate decision in respect of the continuation
of recognition in respect of petitioner Association from 2009
till 2021, in accordance with law.”
15. By the same token, the Executive Director of AIIMS Bhubaneswar had
no competence to suomotu “de-recognize” FAIIMS, especially when
FAIIMS had never been recognized by the competent authority in the
first place. The proper course for the opposite party, if of the view that
FAIIMS ought not to be dealt with as a recognized association, was to
refer the matter to the Ministry or follow the procedure under Rule 8,
which presupposes an existing recognition to withdraw). In issuing
the impugned declaration in the form he did, the Executive Director
acted in excess of his jurisdiction.
16. The finding that the Executive Director had no authority to issue a de-
recognition order might have, in other circumstances, led the Court to
quash that order. Indeed, the petitioner has succeeded in
demonstrating a procedural illegality in the impugned action: the use
of Rule 8 by an unauthorized official. However, as discussed in the
earlier paragraphs, correcting this procedural flaw would not confer
any positive rights upon the petitioner. At best, the Court could set
aside the Executive Director’s letter for want of authority; but even if
that is done, FAIIMS would remain in the position of an unrecognized
association unless and until the Central Government affirmatively
grants it recognition. In other words, quashing the impugned order
Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
would only result in removing the taint of “de-recognition”. It would
not amount to granting recognition or creating any enforceable status
for FAIIMS. Since the core issue is the lack of recognition, the
petitioner would ultimately be left with no remedy even if the
impugned order is invalidated. In such a scenario, the Court may
decline to issue a futile writ. Nonetheless, to dispel any doubt, it is
clarified that the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 shall be treated as
having no legal effect (having been issued without competence), but
this declaration is purely academic given the petitioner’s
unrecognized status. The bottom line is that FAIIMS currently has no
legal recognition; pro tanto, it has no right to be treated as a recognized
association, and therefore no right capable of enforcement through
this writ petition.
17. The petitioner has passionately invoked Article 19(1)(c) of the
Constitution, which guarantees to all citizens the fundamental right to
form associations or unions. There is no quarrel with the proposition
that the members of FAIIMS, as citizens and government employees,
enjoy the freedom to form an association for the furtherance of their
common interests. Any outright ban or unreasonable restriction on the
formation of such an association would indeed offend Article 19(1)(c),
subject to permissible restrictions in Article 19(4). In the Central PWD
Engineers Association (Supra) it was aptly held as under:
“The primary objective of the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 is of
granting recognition to any Service Association in order to
encourage legitimate union activities for enabling the
negotiations by the representative body, if so required andPage 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36maintenance of harmonious relationship between the
government and employees. The government servants
cannot be excluded from the protection of the rights
guaranteed by part III of the Constitution though the duties
which they may discharge as a public servant might involve
restrictions of freedom in terms of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India. By virtue of Article 19(1)(c) of the
Constitution of India, the right to form Association or
Union or Cooperative Societies is a fundamental right even
though the recognition of such Associations by the
government may not be a fundamental right.”
18. In the present case, however, the opposite parties have not attempted
to disband FAIIMS or interfere with its existence. The Association is
free to continue as a voluntary body of like-minded individuals. What
is at stake is recognition by the Government, which is a distinct
concept. The fundamental right to form an association does not entail
a right to compel the government to grant that association official
recognition or negotiation privileges. In other words, while
individuals have freedom to associate, the recognition of that
association by the State, which carries with it certain special privileges
and obligations, is a matter of government policy and statutory
regulation, not a fundamental right. Recognition under the CCS (RSA)
Rules is essentially an administrative facilitation, it enables a channel
of communication and representation between employees and the
Government. The denial or absence of such recognition does not take
away the right of the individuals to continue to form and operate their
association privately; it only means the Government is not bound to
deal with that association officially. Therefore, the petitioner’s Article
Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
19(1)(c) argument, though evocative, does not advance its case for a
writ of mandamus. So long as the opposite parties are not prohibiting
the existence or peaceful activities of FAIIMS, there is no infringement
of the constitutional freedom of association. What the petitioner really
seeks is a discretionary privilege, something Article 19(1)(c) does not
guarantee.
19. The Court also agrees with the opposite parties’ submission that
informal administrative conduct cannot substitute for formal statutory
recognition. The petitioner emphasized past instances where the
AIIMS administration engaged with FAIIMS in a manner similar to
dealing with recognized associations, such as deducting membership
fees through payroll. While such practices may have been allowed,
they carry no legal sanctity in the absence of compliance with Rules 4-
6 of the CCS (RSA) Rules. It appears that the local AIIMS authorities,
perhaps in an effort to maintain cordial relations with the faculty,
extended certain facilities to FAIIMS. However, those acts were ultra
vires to the extent they presumed a status for FAIIMS that the
Government of India had never formally accorded. Neither
acquiescence nor lapse by administrative officials can create a right
contrary to the Rules. The Central Government’s policy on recognition
of service associations, as reflected in the 1993 Rules, is aimed at
ensuring that only representative and accountable associations are
conferred recognition, in order to facilitate effective dialogue and
prevent a multiplicity of unions.
Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
20. Allowing an unrecognized association to enjoy the fruits of
recognition by default would undermine this policy and render the
Rules obsolete. Thus, the Court cannot accept the plea that FAIIMS’s
de facto dealings with the institute entitle it to de jure recognition. If at
all, the petitioner’s recourse is to seek recognition by following the
procedure laid down, not to bypass it by invoking equitable doctrines.
21. This episode highlights a curious disregard for the applicable legal
framework. The Faculty Association has functioned since 2014
without showing any serious engagement with the Central Civil
Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993. These rules
were not introduced yesterday; they have governed the field for
decades. On the other hand, the Executive Director has purported to
withdraw a recognition that was never formally granted, invoking a
power that rests with the Central Government. It seems both parties
have been operating in parallel, guided more by habit and informal
arrangements than by the applicable law. While one appreciates that
academic institutions are primarily driven by pedagogical goals,
regulatory literacy is not optional for bodies exercising public
functions. Good intentions do not cure procedural invalidity, and
institutional habit is not a substitute for statutory recognition.
22. Going forward, both parties might consider reading the rules before
quoting them. The Faculty Association has spent over a decade in
operation without once knocking on the door of formal recognition,
and the Executive Director has attempted to pull the rug from under a
carpet that was never laid to begin with. This is not a legal conflict so
Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
much as a bureaucratic pantomime, complete with a generous
disregard for the scheme of the CCS (RSA) Rules. Institutions like
AIIMS, which pride themselves on academic rigour and public
service, cannot afford to wander through regulatory fog. A basic
acquaintance with the law is not an aspirational standard, it is the
bare minimum. When both the governed and the governing are this
far removed from the legal framework that binds them, confusion is
not an accident, it is the system.
V. CONCLUSION:
23. In sum, the Court finds that the petitioner Association (FAIIMS) was
never formally recognized in accordance with the CCS (RSA) Rules,
1993. Consequently, it has no legal or statutory right to claim the
status or privileges of a recognized service association. The Executive
Director’s impugned order dated 15.03.2024, purporting to de-
recognize FAIIMS, was issued without competent authority; yet,
setting aside that order would not avail the petitioner, since one
cannot lose what one never legally possessed. The fundamental right
to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) remains intact for the
members of FAIIMS, but that right does not translate into a right to be
granted government recognition. No enforceable right of the
petitioner has been infringed so as to warrant the intervention of this
Court under Article 226. The appropriate course for the petitioner, if it
desires official recognition, is to comply with the requisite conditions
and pursue recognition through the proper statutory procedure, not
to seek a short-circuit through judicial fiat.
Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
24. For the reasons aforestated, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the
direction that the Petitioner’s Association shall apply to the
Government with all documents (i.e. Memorandum of Association,
Bye-law, etc.) seeking formal recognition and the appropriate
Government shall take steps to formally recognize the Association
within one month from the date of submission of the application.
25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 20th June, 2025/
Page 18 of 18