The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 69 of 2017 From the Judgment/Order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.836 of 2012. State of Odisha & Anr. :::: Appellants -:: VERSUS ::- Rajalaxmi Swain & Anr. :::: Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid (Physical/Video Conferencing) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
interference is called for by this Court in the Judgment in question. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // present appeal has been filed only on the ground that the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 since has not been made as per the prevalent yardstick, her services cannot be validated in terms of the Validation Act, 1998. In view of the stand taken by the Appellant No. 2 before the Tribunal which is reflected in Para 3 of the impugned Judgment, this Court is unable to accept the contrary view of the Appellant in the present appeal. Since the Appellant challenged the impugned Judgment only on the ground that the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 is not as per the prevalent yardstick, in view of the admission made before the Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Judgment dtd.29.11.2016 so passed in GIA Case No. 836 of 2012. 5. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dismiss the appeal and dismiss the same. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 5th May, 2023/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Cuttack Date: 10-May-2023 12:19:16 Page 5 of 5
Arguments
For Appellants :::: Mr. R.N. Mishra Addl. Govt. Advocate For Respondents :::: Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate ( Respondent No.1) Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate (Respondent No. 2) ..……… PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 20.04.2023 and Date of Order: 05.05.2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B.P. Satapathy, J. The State Machineries are before this Court challenging the Judgment dtd.29.11.2016 passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in GIA Case No. 836 of 2012. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 2. It is contended that the Respondent No 1 in GIA Case No. 836 of 2012 though raised a claim for extension of the benefit of Grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-aid Order, 1994, but the Tribunal while not acceding to the said prayer of the Respondent No. 1, held the Respondent No. 1 entitled to get the benefit under the Validation Act, 1998 and accordingly Appellant No. 1 was directed to consider the claim of the Respondent No. 1. It is contended that when the claim made by the Respondent No. 1 to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-aid order, 1994 was not acceded to by the Tribunal, it should not have directed the Appellants to validate the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 under the Validation Act, 1998 and to release the consequential financial benefit in terms of Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 w.e.f.17.10.1998. 2.1. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants that since the Respondent by the time he was appointed, the relevant yardstick does not provide for such appointment of the Respondent No. 1 as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sanskrit, the direction of the Tribunal to validate such appointment of the Respondent No. 1 and to extend the benefit of Grant-in-aid Order as per GIA Order, 1994 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 2.2. It is contended that irregular appointment of a College Teacher appointed against an admissible post in an Aided College between the period from 01.01.1985 to 31.12.1992 can only be validated for the purpose of Grant-in-aid w.e.f.17.10.1998 as per the Validation Act, 1998. Since by the time the Respondent No. 1 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // was so appointed the post was not admissible, the direction of the Tribunal to validate her appointment and to release the benefit of Grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 w.e.f.17.10.1998 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contended that not only the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sanskrit as per the prevalent yardstick, but the same was also admitted by the Respondent No. 1 while filing its counter before the Tribunal in the GIA Case. The stand taken by the Appellant No. 2 before the Tribunal as reflected in Para 3 of the impugned Judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “The O.P No 2 has filed counter to the contentions of the G.LA, application of the applicant. During hearing, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the O.P.No.1 has also adopted the same. After filing counter the O.P. No.2 has filed an additional counter in support of his case. In the counter, the O.P No.2 has admitted that at present, the applicant is working as Lecturer in Sanskrit in Surajmala Saha College, Puri. He has also admitted that the said College is an aided College and the applicant being appointed by OP.No.3, joined the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit on 2.1.1991 as per prevalent yardstick of that time. He has also admitted that the post of the applicant is admissible to the College from the session 1993-94 In the additional counter, he has contended that the aforesaid post was admissible to the College from 1992-93. However, the OP. No.2 has pleaded in the counter/additional counter that since the applicant has no locus standi to file this case and she has not served any notice on the O.Ps before filing of this case and further since this case has been filed after a long delay, Page 3 of 5 // 4 // as any proposal per Rules this G.I.A. application is not maintainable. He has also pleaded that appointment of the applicant was not made following due procedures and, therefore, it is illegal. Further, according to him, the O.P.No.3 has not submitted for approval/validation of the appointment of the Applicant and, therefore, no relief can be granted to her, particularly for the reason that the Grant in Aid Order, 1994 has been repealed in the mean time. He has also contended that as the applicant in an eligible but left out employee of the College and as Grant in Aid Order, 2000 has been formulated for such employees, the O.Ps has rightly allowed the applicant to receive Block Grant in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 2009.” Mainly on these grounds, the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 have contended that this G.I.A. application is liable for dismissal. The O.P.No.3 has not entered contest.” 3.1. It is contended that since the Appellant No. 2 admitted that the present Respondent was appointed as per the prevalent yardstick as against the 2nd post of Lecturer on 02.01.1991, the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 was rightly directed to be validated as per the provisions of Validation Act, 1998 and the consequential release of Grant-in-aid as per the GIA Order, 1994 w.e.f.17.10.1998. Mr. Sahoo accordingly contended that in view of such admission made by the Appellant No. 2 before the Tribunal, a different plea cannot be taken by the self-same Appellant while filing the present appeal. It is accordingly contended that no