The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 16 of 2019 Biswaranjan Mohapatra …. Appellant Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Respondents Mr. M.K.Balabantaray, AGA for Rs-1&2 Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate for R-3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.08.2024 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 and Mr. A. Sahoo, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the order dated 28.12.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (in short “Tribunal” hereinafter) in GIA Case No. 607 of 2015 under Annexure-3. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 4. It is the case of the appellant that claiming approval of his services for the purpose of getting grant-in-aid under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008, he approached the Tribunal by filing GIA Case No. 607 of 2015. His case is that as against the post of PET (Physical Education Teacher) in question one Pradeep Kumar Nayak was appointed on 18.01.1994, where he joined on 25.01.1994. While continuing as such he resigned from his services on 18.08.1999. Because of such resignation of the incumbent PET, the Governing Body of the College invited fresh applications to fill up the said vacant post and the appellant, having come out successful, was appointed vide order dated 02.12.1999, where he joined on 10.12.1999. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the appellant was appointed as against the vacant post of PET earlier occupied by Pradeep Kumar Nayak with effect from 25.01.1994, the appellant became entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 and accordingly he raised such a claim by filing GIA Case No. 607 of 2015. But the Tribunal, on a misconception that the appellant was appointed after 01.06.1998, held the appellant not entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 and while holding so, directed respondents no.1 and 2 herein to approve his appointment under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2014. 4.2. It is contended that appellant was appointed as against the vacant post of PET earlier occupied by Pradeep Kumar Nayak with effect from 25.01.1994, on being Page 2 of 5 // 3 // appointed vide order dated 18.01.1994. The appellant having been appointed in that vacant post w.e.f. 02.12.1999, after the resignation of the earlier PET on 18.08.1999, it is to be held that the post in which the appellant was appointed was admissible under Grant-in- Aid Order, 2008, having been filled up prior to 01.06.1998. But the said claim was not considered by the Tribunal while disposing of the matter vide the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 under Annexure-3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. A. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body-respondent no.3 also fairly contended that the post of PET was initially filled up by the College in question with appointment of one Pradeep Kumar Nayak vide order dated 18.01.1994, where he joined on 25.01.1994. But said Pradeep Kumar Nayak offered resignation from service on 18.08.1999. The Governing Body of the College in question, by inviting fresh applications, filled up such vacant post of PET by appointing the present appellant vide order of appointment issued on 02.12.1999. The appellant accordingly joined in the said vacant post of PET on 10.12.1999. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also fairly contended that the issue raised by the appellant in the GIA Case with regard to his appointment as against vacant post of PET occupied by the earlier incumbent w.e.f. 25.01.1994, has Page 3 of 5 // 4 // not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, while deciding the issue with the passing of the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the post of PET in the College in question was initially filled up by the Governing Body by appointing one Pradeep Kumar Nayak vide order issued on 18.01.1994. The said Pradeep Kumar Nayak joined in the post on 25.01.1994 and continued as such till 18.08.1999. However, said Pradeep Kumar Nayak when resigned from service on 18.08.1999, the Governing Body, by inviting fresh applications, appointed the present appellant against such vacant post of PET vide order dated 02.12.1999. The appellant accordingly joined in the said vacant post of PET on 10.12.1999. 7.1. Even though such a plea was raised by the appellant in the GIA Case, but it is found that the Tribunal while disposing the matter has not taken into consideration that aspect. In view of such material irregularity, which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 28.12.2018 under Annexure- 3 so passed by the Tribunal in GIA Case No.607 of 2015. While quashing the same, this Court is inclined to remit the same to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision taking into account the stand taken by the appellant that he was appointed as against the vacant post of PET, filled up initially by the Governing Body with order of appointment issued on 18.01.1994 and joining of the appointee on Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 25.01.1994. This Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Since the case is of the year 2015 and it is contended that the State had not filed the counter before the Tribunal, this Court directs the learned Addl. Government Advocate to intimate the Government Advocate appearing before the Tribunal to file the counter affidavit by the end of September, 2024 without fail. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
appeal stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge GDS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2024 19:26:50 Page 5 of 5