The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.71 of 2017 State of Orissa & Another …. Appellants Mr. S.K. Samal, Advocate -versus- Dharemdnra Ku. Pattnaik & Another …. Respondents Mr.M.K. Sahoo, Advocate COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 11.05.2023 Order No M.C. Case No.124 of 2017 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard. 3. Considering the grounds taken in the Misc. Case, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 4. Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands disposed of. Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) 06. FAO No.71 of 2017 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. 2. The State Machineries are before this Court challenging the Judgment dtd.22.11.2016 passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in GIA Case No. 770 of 2012. // 2 // 3. It is contended that the Respondent No 1 in GIA Case No. 770 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. 3.1. 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 Political Science, 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. 3.2. 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 was so appointed the post was not admissible, the direction of the Tribunal to validate his appointment and to release the benefit of Page 2 of 4 // 3 // Grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 w.e.f.17.10.1998 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. 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 Political Science 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 relevant portion of Para 3 of the impugned Judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “Thse O.P.s have pleaded that as the post held by the applicant since 1.8.1991 has not completed the qualifying period of service of five years as o n 1.6.1994 as per the provisions of the Grant In Aid Order, 1994 read with the provisions of Grant in Aid Order, 2004 and as, by virtue of implementation of the Grant in Aid Order, 2004, the earlier Grant in Aid Order, 1994 has been repeasled and further, as subsequently Grnat in Aid order, 2009 has been implemented and as the applicant has been considered as an eligible, but left out teaching staff o fhis College, he has been rightly accommodated with 100% Block Grant in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 2009. Their next say is that as the applicant has already received Block Grant as per the Grant in Aid Order, 2009, his claim for release of grant-in-aid as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 is not tenable at this stage. On these grounds mainly, the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 have prayed to dismissed this G.I.A application. The O.P. No.3 has been set ex parte on 3.10.2016” 4.1. 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 01.08.1991, the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 was rightly directed to be validated as Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 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 interference is called for by this Court in the Judgment in question. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the 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, his 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.22.11.2016 so passed in GIA Case No. 770 of 2012. 6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal and dismiss the same. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: .. Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-May-2023 14:25:56 Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Page 4 of 4