THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF GANGAPUR HIGH SCHOOL Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ORISSA STATE EDUCATION TRIBUNAL AND ANR.
LAWS(ORI)-1988-11-17
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on November 18,1988

The Managing Committee Of Gangapur High School Appellant
VERSUS
Presiding Officer, Orissa State Education Tribunal Respondents




JUDGEMENT

G.B. Patnaik, J. - (1.)THE Managing Committee of Gangapur High School is the Petitioner against the order of the Orissa. Education Tribunal passed in appeal case No. 28 of 1986 which has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition.
(2.)OPPOSITE party No. 2 was the Headmaster of the High School and his service having been terminated by the Managing Committee he approached the Tribunal invoking its jurisdiction under Section 10A (3) of the Orissa Education Act. Before the Tribunal the Managing Committee took the stand that the institution was not an aided educational institution and therefore, no appeal lay to the Tribunal against the order of termination. The Tribunal, however, repelled the said contention and gave a finding that the institution was an aided educational institution. The basis for the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal was that the institution in question had received a kendu -Ieaf grant of Rs. 83,000/ - in the year 1981 and Anr. sum of Rs. l,000/ - in, the year 1983, and therefore, the institution must be held to be an aided educational Institution. After repelling the Petitioner's contention and coming to the conclusion that the institution was an aided educational institution and therefore, the appeal was maintainable on merits of the case, the Tribunal held that the order of termination was illegal inoperative and void since admittedly prior approval of the Circle Inspector had not been obtained as required under section 10A (l) of the Orissa Education Act.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this Court contends that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the institution is an aided educational institution is wholly unsustainable inasmuch 1'8:': the receipt of occasional grant on one or two occasions would not bring an institution within the concept of "aided educational institution" defined in Section 3 (b) of the Orissa Education Act. This question came up for consideration before this Court in the case - of Assistant Personnel Manager (G) Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Elias Minz and Ors. : 63 1987 C. L.T. 480. It has been held in the aforesaid case that in order that an institution can be said to be an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3 (b) of the Act, it must be established that the institution was receiving aid, which in turn connotes that the act of receipt of aid must be a continuous one for some length of time. It has also been held in the aforesaid case that a sporadic or receipt of an intermittent grant on one or two occasions would not bring an institution within the ambit of "aided educational .institution" contemplated under Section 3 (b) of the Orissa Education Act, In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court and in the facts of the present case when admittedly the institution has received kendu -leaf grant only on two occasions, once in 1981 and Anr. in 1983, the conclusion of the Tribunal that it is an aided educational institution cannot be sustained and we must hold that the present institution was not an aided educational institution.

(3.)THE next question cames up for consideration is as to whether a teacher of an un -aided educational institution whose services have been terminated without prior approval of the competent authority can prefer an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of termination. Section 10 -A of the Orissa Education Act is unambiguous and clear and it clearly says that the services of a teacher of an aided Educational institution shall not be terminated without obtaining the prior approval in writing of the Circle Inspector of Schools having jurisdiction and under Sub -section (3) of Section 10A a person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub -section (I) has a right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. In view of the clear and unambiguous language used in Section 10 -A of the Act, it is not permissible for us to hold that even the services of a teacher of an unaided educational institution shall not terminated without obtaining prior approval or that such a teacher can approach the Tribunal in appeal against an order of termination. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the teacher opposite party No. 2 contends that the power of the Tribunal contained in Section 24A of the Act nowhere puts an embargo for the Tribunal to accept an appeal even by a teacher of an un -aided educational institution and therefore, it must be construed that the Tribunal can entertain an appeal made by a tech. -r of an unaided educational institution. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Mohanty the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2. Section 24 -A deals with constitution of the Tribunal and the power of the Tribunal to call for the records of all proceedings relating to the dispute. Sub -section (4) of Section 24 -A only provides that in disposing of an appeal the Tribunal may make such consequential orders and issue such dictions as it may seem necessary for giving effect to its decision. But an appeal to the Tribunal is provided only under -section (3) of Section 10 -A of the Orissa Education Act. If under Sections 10 -A (3) an appeal would not lie at the instance of a teacher of an unaided educational institution, Section 24 -A cannot enlarge the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In thing view of the matter we must now that the appeal at the instance of opposite party No. 2 who was a teacher of an unaided educational institution to the Tribunal was not maintainable and consequently, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law.


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