The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15948 of 2016 Akshaya Kumar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Adv. State of Orissa and others …. -Versus -
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 29304 of 2011, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by passing the following order on 20.01.2015. “Heard Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners file this application seeking for a direction to opposite party no. 1 regarding 20% reservation of posts for promotion to the Jr. SES and Sr. SES i.e. to the post of Headmaster for Hindi Teachers in the High Schools of the State and also to Page 2 of 2 finalize of matter declaring the status of Hindi Teachers with that of the Trained Graduate Teachers as per Common Cadre on the basis of the Annexure-1 and 3 Series with cost. To that extent they have already made representation before opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-4 which is pending for consideration. Considering the limited nature of grievance made by the petitioners without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing opposite party no.1 the representation in Annexure-4 as per the letter vide Annexure-6 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. to consider
Arguments
Opposite Parties Mr. J. Gupta, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 22.03.2023 Order No. 07. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: in “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- (i) direct the opp.Parties to include the name of the petitioner in the common Gradation list of T.G.T. and Hindi T.G.T. as per Seniority on the basis of first date the proposal dated terms of of appointment 24.12.2013 in Annexure-5 and consider his case for promotion as Sr. S.E.S./Headmaster as per the yardstick 4:1 and thereby quashing the order as at Annexure-7 as it is illegal and not in consonance with Govt. Resolution as well as the proposal vide Annexure-5; (ii) Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice;” 3. The petitioner claims to be working as Hindi Teacher in Subarna Debi High School, Kanchapada in the district of Balasore since 25.08.1988 being selected in a regular process of selection. Further, he is receiving TGT scale of pay w.e.f. 08.05.1998 but his name was not included in gradation list meant for TGT. As a Page 1 of 1 result, his juniors have superseded him. Relying upon the resolution dated 18.02.2008 of the Government in School and Mass Education Department, it is contended that the Hindi Teachers possessing the revised common qualification shall be entitled to scale of pay at par with trained graduate scale of pay and that the pay of such Hindi Teachers shall be fixed notionally as per Rule 74 (b) of Orissa Service Code. In paragraph-12 of the said resolution it is mentioned as follows: “Consequent upon fixation of revised qualification, etc. for the post of Hindi Teaches as mentioned above, the post of Hindi Teachers in Government Aided and Block Grant High Schools upgraded to the status and scale of pay of Trained Graduate Teachers.” 4. Basing on this Resolution, the Director, Secondary Education vide letter dated 25.12.2013 recommended to the Government that a separate gradation list be prepared basing on the yardstick of the Government and non-Government High Schools in 4:1 ratio and accordingly requested the Government to consider the demands relating to promotion of Hindi (T.G.T.) in 4:1 ratio submitted by Hindi Teachers Association. Since no action was taken on such recommendation, the petitioner
Decision
The petitioners are directed to produce a certified copy of this order along with copy of the writ petition with all its annexures before opposite party no.1, who shall act upon the same within the time stipulated. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.” 5. Pursuant to such direction, the Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government considered the representation of the petitioner and of several similarly placed persons and by order dated 18.12.2015, which is impugned in the present writ application, ultimately held as follows: xx “xx In view of the above, after xx careful consideration it is decided that as per the existing Rules and norms there is no scope for giving promotion to the Hindi Teacher to the post of the cadre. Hence, Headmaster representations of the petitioners are rejected.” in Sr. SES Evidently, the claim of the petitioner was treated as a 6. claim for promotion per se, which it is not. In fact, what the petitioner claims is fixation of the criteria/yardstick for inclusion of the Hindi (TGT) Teacher of Government and non-Government High School in 4:1 ratio. This has not been considered specifically by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Though a counter affidavit has been filed justifying the issuance of the impugned Page 3 of 3 order yet in view of the contentions raised before this Court and particularly the directions issued by the coordinate Bench in the previous writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner is not so much for promotion as such, but for fixation of criteria for promotion by preparing a common gradation list of Hindi (TGT) Teachers of Government and non- Government by Schools in the ratio of 4:1 as recommended by the Director. 7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of remitting the matter to the opposite party no.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh strictly in terms of the recommendation made by the Director in his letter dated 24.12.2013. Since the matter relates to the year 2008 and the petitioner is due to retire shortly, the opposite party no.1 is directed to consider the matter and pass orders afresh in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks. In doing so, the opposite party no.1 shall also grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Issue urgent certified copy as Rules. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge A.K. Rana Page 4 of 4