The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 819 of 2019 State of Odisha & Anr. …. Appellants Mr. S. Jena, AGA Kalandi Charan Sahoo & Ors. -versus- …. Respondents Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate Order No. 10. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 30.08.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment dated 15.05.2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No. 509 of 2011. 3. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that private respondent no.1, claiming approval of his appointment as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Odia in Saheed Memorial College at Eram, in the district of Bhadrak, approached this Court by filing OJC No.7898 of 1997. But the said writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and it was registered as GIA Case No.509 of 2011. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 3.1. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that even though no such prayer was ever made to approve the appointment of private respondent no.1 as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia in the College in question, after such transfer of the matter to the Tribunal, but in absence of any such prayer, the Tribunal while disposing of the matter, directed the appellants to approve appointment of the private respondent no.1 as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia in Saheed Memorial College at Eram, in the district of Bhadrak under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. 3.2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since no such prayer was ever made by the private respondent no.1seeking approval of his services as against 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia in the College in question, no such direction could have been issued while disposing of the matter vide the impugned judgment. It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.1, basing on the order passed by this Court on 26.07.2024, contended that even though no such prayer was made by the private respondent no.1 seeking approval of his services as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia before the Tribunal after such transfer of the matter, but in course of hearing since private respondent no.1/applicant in the GIA Case raised the claim for his approval as against the 2nd post, learned Government Advocate appearing before the Tribunal gave his consent for Page 2 of 5 // 3 // consideration of his claim for approval as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia. It is accordingly contended that since the matter was disposed of because of the concession given by the learned Government Advocate appearing before the Tribunal and accordingly the direction was issued, the appellants cannot challenge the judgment after giving such concession. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for private respondent no.1, in support of his submission, relied on the finding of the Tribunal so reflected in para-5 of the impugned judgment. Para-5 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder:- Learned counsel for the applicant during course “5. of argument contended that in view of the subsequent appointment of the applicant against the 2nd post on 25.4.1995 and recommendation to the Regional Director in favour of the applicant to the Government under Annexure-E/2, the claim of the applicant against the 1st post on the basis of his initial appointment dated 16.7.1988 may not be considered, however, his case may be considered for the purpose of block Grant in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 2009. Learned Government Advocate contended that since the applicant does not press his claim for approval of his appointment against the 1st post and claims for approval of his appointment against the 2nd post in view of his fresh appointment on 25.4.1995, necessary direction may be issued to the Government to act upon the recommendation made by the Regional Director under Annexure-E/2. Learned Counsel for the O.P.No.4 contended that if the case of the applicant is considered for the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia, then the O.P.No.4 who is the holder of the 1st post of Lecturer would not have any grievance.” Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 4.2. Mr. Mohapatra accordingly contended that since the Tribunal basing on the concession given by the learned State Counsel passed the judgment, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the direction contained in the judgment dated 15.05.2019. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that claiming approval of his services as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Odia, private respondent no.1 initially approached this Court in OJC No.7898 of 1997. The matter, on being transferred to the Tribunal, was registered as GIA Case No.509 of 2011. Since no such prayer, after transfer of the matter, was made by the private respondent no.1 seeking approval of his services as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia, in absence of any such prayer being made, the Tribunal, as per the considered view of this Court, taking into account the concession given by the State Counsel, could not have directed for approval of the services of the private respondent no.1 against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia vide the impugned judgment. As per the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal, at best, basing on the concession given by the learned Government Advocate, could have directed the appellants to consider the claim of the private respondent no.1 with regard to approval of his services as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. 5.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court, while interfering with the impugned judgment, is inclined to Page 4 of 5 // 5 // modify the same. This Court, while modifying the impugned judgment dated 15.05.2019 so passed in GIA Case No. 509 of 2011, directs appellants no.1 & 2 to consider the claim of the private respondent no.1 for approval of his services as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009. Such a consideration be made with passing of an appropriate order, as directed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgment. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge GDS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2024 19:28:23 Page 5 of 5