The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 261 of 2018 ..... Md. Soyeb Akhtar Appellant Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate State of Odisha&Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Respondents Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.07.2025 Order No.10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant along with Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Memo containing the workload as against the post of Lecturer in English as per 1983 yardstick so produced in Court be kept in record. 4. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging judgment dtd.08.02.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short Tribunal) in GIA Case No. 581 of 2013 under Annexure-8. Vide the said judgment claim of the Appellant for approval of his services under the Validation Act was rejected. Page 1 of 8. 5. It is the case of the Appellant that Appellant was appointed in Pipili Junior College as against the 4th Post of Lecturer in English vide order dtd.15.06.1991. In terms of the said order Appellant joined on 21.06.1991. It is contended that +2 wing of the College received Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1986 and Appellant’s services was approved as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College vide order of approval issued on 30.03.2010 under Annexure-10.
Legal Reasoning
5.1. It is contended that after approval of his services as against the 3rd Post of Lecturer in English vide order dtd.30.03.2010 in making him eligible to receive the Grant-in-aid under the GIA Order, 2009, Appellant’s claim since was covered under the provisions of Validation Act, he raised his claim for approval of his services as per the provisions of the said Act. 5.2. It is contended that considering the claim made by the Appellant, his claim was also earlier recommended by the College vide letter dtd.12.05.2006 under Annexure-6. It is contended that since Appellant was appointed on 15.06.1991 and the cut-off date fixed under the Validation Act for such appointment is 31.10.1992 to get the benefit of approval under the provisions of the said Act, Appellant’s claim so made before the Tribunal was a genuine one Page 2 of 8. and the same would have been allowed. But on the ground that one Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy has already been appointed as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College, claim of the Appellant was rejected vide the impugned judgment dtd.08.02.2018 under Annexure-8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to adjustment of the said Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy so reflected in Para 5 of the Judgment reads as follows:- “From Annexure-7, it appears, the incumbent against the 3rd post namely Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy has been adjusted against the 3rd post of lecturer in Junior College and his appointment has been approved with release of grant-in-aid w.e.f.1.6.1995.” 5.3. To the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy was never appointed as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College and in fact his services was approved as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Degree College. 5.4. In support of his submission reliance was placed to the communication issued by the Department on 09.12.2011 under Annexure-2. It is contended that since Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy was appointed and approved as against the 3rd Post of Lecturer in Pipili Degree College, claim of the Appellant for approval of his services under the Validation Act in Pipili Junior College could not have been Page 3 of 8. rejected on the ground that the said post has been occupied by Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy. It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and claim made by the Appellant before the Tribunal requires to be allowed. 6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State Machinery on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment, contended that even if it is held that Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy was appointed as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Degree College, but in view of the stand taken in Para 6 of the Judgment, claim of the Appellant is not entertainable. Stand taken by the Tribunal in Para 6 of the Judgment reads as follows:- “From the workload statement under Annexure-13, it appears in the academic sessin 1991-92 ibkt tgree oists were admissibke in the Junior College and all the three posts have already been approved. Therefore, the appointment of the applicatnt cannot be validated in terms of the Validation Act, 1998. So far as the release of grant- in-aid and adjustment of the applicant in Degree College is concerned, in view of the workload statement of both the Higher Secondary courses and the Decree Courses submitted by the applicant along with the written note of argument, it appears, in the academic session 1991-92m four posts were admissible to the College on account of the wrokload of bot the Higher Secondary Courses and the Degree Courses. The Degree College is an Aided Educational Institution and a Category-II type of College in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 1994. From the counter Page 4 of 8. affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 vis-a-vis the mark sheet of the applicant of the M.A. Examination, it appears, he has secured 414 marks out of total mark of 800, which is around 52% in aggregate. For appointment of a Lecturer in a Degree College, minimum 55% of mark in M.A. Examinatioin is required. Since the applicant has secured less than 55% of marks, he cannot be adjusted against the Degree College eve. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is also not eligible to receive grant-in-aid in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 1994. Hence, ordered:-“ It is accordingly contended that since as per the work load, 3rd post of Lecturer was not admissible as per the prevalent work load, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned judgment. 7. To the stand taken by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel regarding work load and justification of the appointment, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the workload statement of the College so produced in Court by way of a memo. Basing on the workload it is contended that at the relevant point of time one additional post of Lecturer in English was available as per the 1983 yardstick. It is contended that taking into account the workload available in the College, Appellant was appointed as against the 4th post of Lecturer in English and his services was approved as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior Page 5 of 8. College vide order dt.30.03.2010 under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that the stand taken in Para 6 of the impugned judgment is also not sustainable taking into account the workload available in the College as against the 4th post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Appellant was appointed as against the 4th post of Lecturer in English vide order of appointment issued on 15.06.1991 under Annexure-3. Pursuant to the said order, Appellant joined as against the said post on 21.06.1991 and the same was approved by the Governing Body in its proceeding dtd.14.12.1991 under Annexure-4. It is found that services of the Appellant was initially approved under the GIA Order, 2009 by approving his services as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College vide order dt.30.03.2010 under Annexure-10. 8.1. However, after such approval of his services, taking recourse to the provisions contained under the Validation Act, Appellant moved the Tribunal with a prayer to direct the State authorities to approve his services as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College under the Validation Act. It is not disputed by the Page 6 of 8. Parties that the claim of the Appellant is not covered under the Validation Act, having been appointed prior to the cut-off date i.e.31.12.1992. But as found from the impugned judgment claim of the Appellant was rejected by the Tribunal on two grounds i.e. post claimed by the Appellant is already occupied by one Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy and the workload does not permit the appointment of the Petitioner at the relevant point of time. 8.2. This Court taking into account the communication available under Annexure-2 finds that Sri Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy has been approved as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Degree College. Not only that from the workload statement produced in Court, it is also found that such post was admissible at the relevant point of time and the same has also been acted upon while approving the services of the Appellant as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English vide order of approval issued on 30.03.2010 under Annexure-10. 8.3. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the Appellant’s claim, rejected the same vide the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment dtd.08.02.2018. While quashing the same, this Court directs Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to approve the Page 7 of 8. services of the Appellant under the provisions of Validation Act and extend the benefit as due and admissible. This Court directs Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision
9. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Jul-2025 15:54:48 Page 8 of 8.