Decided on August 11,1978

The Managing Committee, Mohavir Ucha Vidyapitha Appellant
Baishnab Charan Nayak And Ors. Respondents


R.N. Misra, J. - (1.) THE Managing Committee of a High English School - an aided educational institution as defined by the Orissa Education Act - through its Secretary is the Petitioner. The appellate order of the State Education Tribunal is assailed and the Petitioner has asked for quashing the same by issue of a writ of certiorari.
(2.) ON 1.2.1973, the opposite party No. 1 was appointed as a teacher up to 30th of June of that year and the appointment was approved by the Managing Committee of the School by Resolution dated 3 -3 -1973. In the Resolution it was specifically indicated that a trained graduate teacher was not available and, therefore, opposite party No. 1 though not trained had been given the appointment on temporary basis. Opposite party No. 1's appointment was extended in two instalments - first upto 31 -5 -1974 and again upto 31 -5 -1975. The second extension as would appear from the Resolution of the Committee under Annexure -3 was under instruction of the Inspector of Schools during inspection. On 1.5.1975, the Secretary of the Managing Committee informed opposite party No. 1 that his services would no longer be required with effect from 1st of June, 1975. On 14 -5 -1975, the Inspector informed the Managing Committee that the notice of termination was illegal and, therefore, the same should be withdrawn and justification for termination if any should be communicated to the Inspector. On 16 -5 -1975, the Secretary requested the Inspector to accord approval of termination of the service with justifying grounds. On 1 -8 -75, the Inspector communicated his approval with reference to the request dated 16 -5 -1975 and on 3 -8 -1975, the fact that the termination was approved by the Inspector was duly communicated to opposite party No. 1. The teacher thereupon carried an appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 29 -5 -1976, the Tribunal has vacated the termination and had directed the employment to continue. This appellate order is assailed now.
(3.) Opposite party No. 1 has filed a return to the rule nisi and had justified the appellate order. He has further indicated that on 10 -8 -1976, the Inspector required the Management to permit opposite party No. 1 to join the Service, but since this Court did not allow stay of operation of the appellate order and the Managing Committee refused to allow the opposite party No. 1 to resume work, it has been superseded in July, 1978. It is, however, conceded that the order of supersession had -in the meantime been stayed in an appeal filed by the Management.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.