The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 39175 of 2021 Premalata Basantia …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case: For Petitioner : Mr. P. Chulli, Advocate For Opposite Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO JUDGMENT 28.03.2024 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ 1. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 7- C of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short ‘the Act’), the State Government of Odisha has made “the Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in- Aid in the shape of Block Grant Order, 2014” (‘Grant-in-Aid Order 2014’ in short) to regulate payment of Grant-in-Aid in shape of Block Grant to private educational institutions or for any post or to any person employed in such institution being a Non-Government College, Junior College or Higher Secondary School. W.P.(C) No.39175 of 2021 Page 1 of 7 2. Paragraph-8(1) of the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 reads thus:- “8(1). A post in a Non-Government Educational Institution for which no Grant-in-Aid has been sanctioned prior to commencement of this Order shall be eligible for Grant-in-Aid in shape of Block Grant, if,— (a) the post is admissible as per work-load and yardstick prescribed in this Order at Annexure-II; and (b) it has completed qualifying period of 5 years or more from the date of its admissibility or of 3 years or more in the case of an educational institution situated in an Educationally Backward District or in case of a Women’s Educational Institution.” 3. Annexure-II of the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 lays down the yardstick for approval of post in aided educational institutions for the purpose of Block Grant. Clause-1 lays down the maximum number of students other than compulsory subjects in which admissible post of teachers would be eligible for approval for the purposes of Grant-in-Aid in shape of Block Grant as indicated in the table mentioned therein. 4. Similarly, Clause-2 of Annexure-II lays down the yardstick for maximum number of non-teaching posts that would be admissible for approval as per the table mentioned thereunder. Annexure-II ends with following stipulation:- “If any teaching or non-teaching post is required in an Aided Educational Institution beyond what is admissible as mentioned above the salary and non-salary costs of such posts shall be borne by the Governing Body and the State Government shall bear no liability for the same.” W.P.(C) No.39175 of 2021 Page 2 of 7 5. The petitioner claims to be working as a Lady Attendant in Karilopatna Degree College, Karilopatna the District of Kendrapara against the 1st Post. It has been asserted in the present in writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on 07.12.1998 in the College consequent upon the death of her husband who was working as an Instructor in SP/St on the basis of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. The college is an institution, privately managed by its Governing Body. The Governing Body of the college in its third meeting vide Resolution No.2(h) dated 12.03.2000 had approved the petitioner’s joining and since then, she had been discharging her duties to the best satisfaction of the authorities of the college. 6. It is also the petitioner’s case, further, that the 1st Post of Lady Attendant in the college had become admissible to the college for receiving Grant-in-Aid by way of Block Grant with effect from 01.02.2009. As the petitioner had joined the post on 07.12.1998, i.e. after the cut-off date, 01.06.1998, she was not allowed the Block Grant with effect from 01.02.2009. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that more than 200 women students are pursuing their studies in the college and since the petitioner had joined on 07.12.1998, she is entitled to get Grant-in-Aid with effect from 01.01.2014 in accordance with the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014. She has, however, been deprived of the benefits under the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 because of the arbitrary provision under Annexure-II as has been quoted hereinabove. It has also been asserted that there are instances of providing Grant-in-Aid benefits to the Lady Attendants in other colleges. W.P.(C) No.39175 of 2021 Page 3 of 7 7. It is noteworthy that the Principal of the College has been communicated by a letter dated 09.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education informing that the college was not eligible to get 40% Block Grant as per the provisions under Grant- in-Aid Order, 2014 as the post of a Lady Attendant does not find place in the yardstick under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2014. The petitioner has been shown in the said letter dated 09.06.2021 as Lady Attendant (2nd Post). 8. It is an admitted position that the college is not entitled to 40% Block Grant under Grant-in-Aid Order, 2014 for the post because of the clause under Annexure-II of Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 which specifically provides that if any teaching or non-teaching post is required in an Aided Educational Institution beyond what is admissible under Annexure-II, the salary and non-salary costs of such posts shall be borne by the Governing Body and the State Government shall bear no liability for the same. 9. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is working in the college against a non-teaching post beyond what is admissible under Annexure-II of the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014, that is the reason and in the said background, the petitioner has challenged the vires of said clause. 10. Mr. P. Chulli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the said provision is ultra-vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also the provisions under the Odisha Education Act, 1969. He has further W.P.(C) No.39175 of 2021 Page 4 of 7 submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated against, inasmuch as, in similar circumstance, the Government has allowed the Grant-in-Aid to the other colleges whereas it has been denied to the college of the petitioner in respect of the petitioner’s post. He has reiterated that the decision of the State Government as contained in the communication dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), denying to the college eligibility to get 40% of Block Grant as regards the petitioner’s post is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has argued that the Grants-in-Aid to the institutions are provided under the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 which is a Scheme framed under Section 7-C of the Act. He argues that the clause, validity of which has been challenged is neither in contravention of any statutory provision nor it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which is uniformly applicable to all education institutions. 12. We have carefully perused the grounds taken in the present writ petition, assailing the validity of the clause below the clause-4 of Annexure-II of the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014, and we have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 13. At the outset, we deem it proper to note that Section 7-C of the Act contemplates setting apart a sum of money annually for being given as Grant-in-Aid to private education institutions in the State, within the limits of its economic capacity. Denial of such Grant-in- W.P.(C) No.39175 of 2021 Page 5 of 7 Aid under the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 in any form may affect the educational institution as the aid is to the educational institution in respect of posts in accordance with the yardstick formulated under Annexure-II of the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014. We see no reason why an employee of privately managed aided institution should question denial of Grant-in-Aid. Such employee may have grievance against the management of the college if he/she is not paid salary at the permissible rate. The college under which the petitioner is working appears to have raised no grievance against the State’s denial to release Grant-in-Aid to the post against which the petitioner is working. We are at a loss as to under what circumstance and at whose instance, the petitioner, who is a lady attendant working in a privately managed college, has been made to question the validity of a significant part of the Scheme in the form of Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 which in no uncertain terms prescribes that if any teaching or non-teaching post is required in an Aided Educational Institution beyond what is admissible, salary and non-salary costs of such posts shall be borne by the Governing Body and the State Government shall bear no liability for the same. The said clause makes the Governing Body liable to bear the salary and non-salary costs of such teaching or non-teaching posts which are required beyond admissibility as per the yardstick provided under Annexure- II of the Grant-in-Aid Order 2014.
Decision
14. There is no averment in the writ petition from which it can be inferred that the petitioner is adversely affected because of denial by the State to make available Grant-in-Aid to the post against which she is working as it is clearly prescribed in the clause which W.P.(C) No.39175 of 2021 Page 6 of 7 is under challenge that such salary and non-salary cost is to be borne by the Governing Body of the college. 15. Further, coming to the question of the validity of the clause of Annexure-II of Grant-in-Aid Order 2014, we find that no ground at all has been made out for this Court even to consider the said question. The Scheme is apparently in accordance with the provision under Section 7-C of the Odisha Education Act, 1969. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any provision of the Act which has been breached by the prescription in the aforementioned clause of Annexure-II of Grant-in-Aid Order 2014 under challenge. 16. In our opinion, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Judge (S.K. Sahoo) S. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Mar-2024 18:27:27 W.P.(C) No.39175 of 2021 Page 7 of 7