State of Odisha and others Saroj Kumar Sahoo and another … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 25635 of 2017 State of Odisha and others Saroj Kumar Sahoo and another ….. Vs. ….. Petitioners Mr. S. Jena, S.C.(S&ME) Deptt. Opposite Parties Mr. B. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY Order No. 04. 2. 3. ORDER 23.09.2022 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has
Legal Reasoning
challenged the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 669 of 2014. 4. The issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7707 of 2017 and a batch of writ petitions, which were disposed of on 05.02.2018 with the following order: Advocate learned
Legal Reasoning
“Heard Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, assisted counsel learned Subhasree Senior petitioners- Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel applicants, Mr. B. Rout, for School & Mass Education Department and Mr. K. party- for counsel learned applicant in W.P.(C) No. 12855 of 2017. by Mrs. the for opposite Swain,
Decision
order dated 7707, Petitioners 27.04.2016 in W.P.(C) Nos. 7708, the 7715 and 7717 have challenged a part of the common by in O.A. Nos. 3431 Orissa Administrative Tribunal (C), 2981 (C), 2993 (C), 2982 (C) and 2992 (C) of 2012, wherein the the Tribunal while the applicant-petitioners directed prayer made by be the that notionally extended in favour of the petitioners. financial allowing benefits service passed and The State-functionaries have also filed Page 1 of 4 W.P.(C) Nos. 12855 passed by the Tribunal. 2017 of 17366, 17367, 17368, 17369 challenging the aforesaid and order Since in all these common order passed by challenge, they are heard by this common order. petitions writ the Tribunal the is under together and disposed of the The benefits, applicants petitioners in W.P.(C) the Tribunal that further law decided by the Apex Court has come directed notionally. He learned Sr. Counsel that 7707, Nos. 7708, 7715 and 7717 are also the opposite parties in W.P.(C) Nos. 17366, 17367, 17368 and 17369 for of 2017. Mr. Mohanty, submitted the applicants taking this Court into consideration the and by to a positive finding and quashed the order of reversion dated 01.09.2012. However the Tribunal instead of extending the actual and financial be service extended that the qualification the and as per Rule-8 (2) (b) of the Odisha Education of Conditions (Recruitment Service of Teachers Aided hereinafter Institution) Educational in 1974 Rules, their appointments as Headmaster the the aided high schools have been approved by competent entitled therefore, to the scale of pay for the post of Headmaster as their they had been duties as in Government view of subsequently the note Tribunal also while passing the impugned order. continuing and discharging of Staff 1974, decision has and Rules, such. Their of taken Principals redundant authority, submitted reversion requisite benefits is the having which they and and are the by that Learned Standing Counsel on for the the applicants before appointed School & hand other Mass Education Department the submitted however as Headmasters since were Tribunal the competent authority, without prior approval of the order of the Tribunal should not have quashed interfered with. reversion. Thus placed In of support reliance on the in case of Pabitra Mohan Dash and others v. State of Orissa and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 480. he has the Apex Court his the decision of the order need be contention, The record fact of is training the requisite year Teacher teaching well the case, as that applicants and the qualification as 03.06.1988 experience before is revealed having from the seven Trained Graduate the became having Page 2 of 4 to on the the that into vide post post such order, therein reverted clarified However erroneous Institution) impression, 09.07.2002. the matter the Tribunal reversion an Rules, to The in an aided High Schools with Educational such applicants were on the Director, Secondary Education Challenging Headmaster the approval of the Director under Rule-8 (2) (b) of the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Principals and Staff of Aided 1974. trained However graduate State 10.02.2003 on Government indicating the headmasters who got promotion under Rule-8 (2)(b) of 1974 Rules prior force of Rule 8 (3) of 1974 rules, to coming i.e. prior to 03.06.1988 were not supposed to be reverted trained of Headmaster from a graduate dated Accordingly post. order the State Government 10.02.2003 and 29.03.2003 on revoked order. 01.09.2012 once reverted again the the applicants. applicants approached in O.A. Nos. 3431 (C), 2981 (C), 2993 (C), 2982 (C) and 2992 into consideration (C) of 2012. The Tribunal the law decided by the Special Bench of this Court as well as by the case of the Apex Court Pabitra Mohan Dash and others v. State of Orissa in (2001) 2 SCC 480 wherein and others reported it was held the qualification regulation 17 teaching for if nobody has been appointed experience as a TGT against of the teaching experience as a TGT, his appointment or taking promotion the note of the applicants’ Scale Director effect with (for of convenience in O.A. No. the case of the Tribunal) and 3431 (C) of 2012 was them revert is no there therefore, these 199 2nd to time they stand on different Headmasters were of to not this Headmasters on Court as well as by the Apex Court in the case of Priti Ranjan Pradhan and Pabitra Mohan Das. received Headmaster 20.07.1985 the applicant taken by justification the post of Headmaster as 7 years of be reverted the basis of post judgment of footing and the the post of TGT and invalid. The Tribunal that after 29.04.1977, is perse such held approved post without from the prescribing promotion i.e. after that by position having settled (2)(1) years taken from they was Pay and the in to 7 In view of the on is no error there the Tribunal with the dispute regarding prior approval of the above, of finding to apparent regard Page 3 of 4 in from the date of the the Tribunal the post of headmasters by to get the the applicants the competent authority. They are entitled their Headmaster Scale of pay competent authority. Accordingly approval by the extent the order of that the Headmaster Scale of Pay from the date of their approval by the Director respectively instead of notionally. The arrears be calculated period of three months. the applicants are entitled is modified released within and to to a above With the modification impugned order, W.P. 7717 of 2017 are accordingly disposed of and the State-functionaries, writ petitions filed by 17369 17368, 17366, W.P.(C) Nos. 12855 of 2017 are accordingly dismissed.” the (C) Nos. 7707, 7708, 7715, the i.e. and 17367, in 5. However, the State-petitioners have preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order. 6. Since the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, parties will be governed by the result of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Ashok/Subha (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Page 4 of 4