PARTHA SARATHI DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner -cum -Secretary, Government of Odisha, School and Mass Education Department under Annexure -14 refusing to approve the post of Assistant Teacher held by the petitioner on the plea that the post of Trained Graduate (Arts) of Labani Devi Ucha Vidyapitha, Santara in the district of Jajpur has been abolished. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner has been denied grant -in -aid.

(2.) THE short fact of the case in hand, is that pursuant to the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of Labani Devi Ucha Vidyapitha, Santara dated 26.3.1984, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 27.7.1984, pursuant to which, he submitted his joining report on 31.7.1984 and as such, he has been continuing in the post till the school became eligible to receive grant -in -aid on 10.11.1995 giving effect from 1.6.1994. Pursuant to such grant -in -aid, all the posts of teaching and non -teaching staffs in the school except that held by the petitioner have been approved for receiving grant -in -aid. The Trained Graduate post held by the petitioner has not been finalized due to the case filed by one Prafulla Kumar Nayak, Assistant Teacher who assailed his order of termination before the Director, Secondary Education and thereafter before this Court in OJC No. 8262 of 1996. Due to non -sanction of grant -in -aid, the petitioner had also approached this Court by filing OJC No.99 of 1997 and the Managing Committee of Labani Devi Ucha Vidyapitha also filed OJC No.100 of 1997 assailing the order of the Director, Secondary Education. In all these three writ applications, i.e. OJC No. 8262 of 1996 filed by Prafulla Kumar Nayak, OJC No.99 of 1997, filed by the petitioner and OJC No.100 of 1997 filed by the Managing Committee of Labani Devi Ucha Vidyapitha were heard together and by a common judgment, those writ applications were disposed of by this Court on 24.01.1997. The operative portion of the said judgment is as follows :

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice, the opposite party no.3 has filed its counter stating that the petitioner was an un -trained graduate on the date of his appointment, i.e. on 27.7.1984 and he had no requisite qualification to hold the post of Trained Graduate teacher and there was no vacancy in the staff position of the school as prescribed by the Government at the time of his appointment and illegalities have been committed by the Managing Committee of the School in appointing the petitioner beyond the prescribed yardstick who was not qualified and eligible for such appointment and also the State Government cannot bear the financial burden from the State exchequer for such illegal and whimsical action of the Managing Committee. The State Government as a matter of policy has taken decision for abolition of 75% of the base level posts in all similar category of schools in the State and accordingly, two Trained Graduate posts of Labani Devi Ucha Vidyapitha have been abolished since 4.7.2005. Therefore, no vacancy is available and the Director Secondary Education has also communicated to the State Government vide letter dated 4.7.2005 with regard to abolition of two Trained Graduate posts (Arts) in respect of Labani Devi Ucha Vidyapitha as at Sl.No.24 of Annexure -A/3. It appears that Labani Devi Ucha Vidyapitha, which is a fully aided school, is eligible to receive grant -in -aid with effect from 1.6.1994. The Managing Committee of the school terminated the services of Prafulla Kumar Nayak who was working as against a Trained Graduate post with effect from 3.11.1992. It is further stated that the Managing Committee appointed the petitioner against the post of Trained Graduate (Arts) as a surplus staff because two Assistant Teachers were continuing at that time as per the yardstick. It is further stated that the parties have ventilated their grievances before this Court by filing separate writ applications, which have been disposed of on 24.1.1997. Since the petitioner was appointed against a non -existent post of Trained Graduate Teacher as surplus hand, such appointment being illegal, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit as claimed by him.