- (1.) DELAY condoned.
(2.) LEAVE granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the orissa High Court. Factual background can be adumbrated concisely as follows: The responded no. 1 filed a writ application being OJC No. 6857 of 1996 before the Orissa High Court claiming that he was appointed as "fourth peon" by the management of the concerned institution, which is an "aided educational institution" as defined under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short the `act') and Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational institutions) Rules, 1974 (in short `recruitment Rules' ). It is not in dispute that if an institution is an aided educational institution, same is governed by the Act and rules framed thereunder. The Recruitment Rules are framed under the Act. As the functionaries of the State did not approve the appointment holding the same to be beyond the prescribed yardstick, writ applications were filed for direction to the concerned authorities to accord approval to the appointment.
(3.) THE High Court by the impugned judgment in writ application came to hold that the functionaries of the State were not justified in refusing to accord approval. Stand of the State Government was that circular dated 8. 7. 1981 contained yardstick for fixation of standard staff for the Non-Government Secondary Schools in supersession of earlier circulars. Under the "category of staff" the number of peons who can be appointed was clearly spelt out. Only if the roll strength of the institution exceeded a particular number, one post of "daftry" was admissible. According to the state Government the post of "daftry" is a promotional post and, therefore, the concept of a "fourth peon" as sought to be canvassed by the writ petitioners is without any legal foundation. The position was further clarified by Circular dated 27. 3. 1992. The High Court on consideration of the rival stands came to equate the "fourth peon" with "daftry" and held the claim of the writ petitioner warranted acceptance. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State of Orissa submitted that the High Court missed to consider several vital aspects. Firstly, there is no prescription of a "fourth peon" in the yardstick prescribed. The post of "daftry" is a promotional post and it carries higher scale of pay. That being the position, the last entrant cannot claim the post of the "daftry".;