The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35303 of 2023 Gobinda Chandra Dash …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. S. Jena, Adv. for O.P.3 Order No. 08. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.03.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia challenging the order dtd.29.11.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner for approval of his services as against the post of TGT in the School of Opposite Party No.3 was rejected. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was initially appointed vide office order dtd.13.01.1993 as against a Trained Matric Post under Annexure-4-Series. // 2 // 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing, Petitioner passed the B.Ed. Examination, result of which was published on 26.11.1997 under Annexure-5-Series. 4.2. It is contended that on his passing the B.Ed. the then Managing Committee of the School vide its Resolution dtd.29.01.2015 resolved to promote the Petitioner as against the TGT post and accordingly vide letter dtd.30.01.2015 under Annexure-9, Petitioner was promoted to the said post of TGT. In term of order under Annexure-9, Petitioner joined as against the TGT post on 01.02.2015 under Annexure-10. 4.3. It is contended that subsequently on being moved when the Opposite Party No.2 did not take any action in approving the services of the Petitioner as against the TGT post. Petitioner initially moved the authority and thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19088 of 2021.This Court vide order dtd.02.07.2021 when directed Opposite Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner’s grievance, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.29.11.2022 under Annexure-1 on the ground that in absence of any feeder post prescribed in the yardstick, promotion of the Petitioner to a TGT post could not have been made. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was initially appointed as against a Matric CT post and after acquisition of his Page 2 of 8 // 3 // B.Ed. qualification, the result of which was published in the year 1997, Petitioner was duly promoted as against the vacant TGT post on 30.01.2015 under Annexure-9, where he joined on 01.02.2015 under Annexure-10. 4.5. It is also contended that as per the yardstick issued by the Government on 15.12.2007 under Annexure-2 in a Madhyama Toll, the following posts are admissible:- 1. Acharya Head Pandit. 2. Sastri Pandit. 3. B.A. B.Ed. 4. I.Sc., CT. 4.6. It is contended that since Petitioner while in service acquired the qualification of BEd, he was rightly promoted to a TGT post while working as against the Matric C.T. post. 4.7. It is also contended that since Petitioner was duly promoted by the Managing Committee taking into account the vacancy available and as per the yardstick issued by the Government on 15.12.2007 under Annexure-2, a post of TGT is available i.e. B.A. B.Ed., the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 4.8. It is also contended that in terms of the order of promotion, Petitioner is continuing as against the post of TGT and now discharging his duty as In-Charge Headmaster in the Toll. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since in the yardstick there is no post of Matric CT. Petitioner who was appointed as against Matric CT post, on his acquiring the B.Ed. qualification could not have been given promotion as against the TGT post (B.A. B.Ed.). 5.1. It is also contended that as provided under Rule- 8(2)(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as prior approval of the concerned authority was never taken, the Managing Committee was not competent to extend the benefit of promotion in terms of the Resolution issued under Annexure-8, and consequential letter issued under Annexure-9. 5.2. It is contended that since prior approval was never taken and nothing was indicated in the order of promotion that from which post the Petitioner was given the benefit of promotion, his claim for approval has been rightly rejected. 6. Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3 on the other hand contented that Page 4 of 8 // 5 // taking into account the vacancy available in the year 2013 and the Petitioner since was having B.A. B.Ed. qualification, the Managing Committee in its Resolution dtd.29.01.2015 under Annexure-8 resolved to extend the benefit of promotion to the Petitioner as against the post of TGT. Pursuant to such decision of the Managing Committee taken in its proceeding dtd.29.01.2015 under Annexure-8 and consequential letter issued by Opposite Party No.3 on 30.01.2015 under Annexure-9, Petitioner joined as against the TGT post on 01.02.2015. 6.1. It is contended that since Petitioner does have the required qualification to hold the post of TGT, which is also prescribed in the yardstick issued by the Government under Annexure-2, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such extension of the benefit in favour of the Petitioner. 6.2. It is however contended that even though prior approval has not been taken before giving such benefit of promotion to the Petitioner but post facto approval can be given by Opposite Party No.2. 7. To the submissions made by learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner made further submissions contending inter alia that claim of the Page 5 of 8 // 6 // Petitioner has not been rejected, relying on the provisions contained under Rule-8(2)(b) of 1974 Rules. 7.1. It is also contended that in similar nature of promotion, post facto approval has been issued by the Government vide order available under Annexure-16. 7.2. It is contended that since the Petitioner has been duly promoted as against the vacant post by the Managing Committee of the School, even if the same has been extended without obtaining prior approval as provided under Rule-8(2)(b) of 1974 Rules, but post facto approval can be given by Opposite Party No.2. 7.3. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision and extend the benefit of post facto approval to the promotion of the Petitioner so made by the Managing Committee vide letter dtd.30.01.2015 under Annexure-9, basing on the Resolution issued under Annexure-8. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially appointed as against a Matric CT post vide order of appointment issued on 13.01.1993 under Annexure-14. As found Petitioner acquired the B.Ed. qualification the result of which was published on 26.11.1997. Page 6 of 8 // 7 // 8.1. It is also found that while the Petitioner was so continuing, the Managing Committee in its proceeding dtd.29.01.2015 under Annexure-8 taking into account the vacancy available in the year 2013, as against the TGT Post resolved to extend the benefit of promotion to the Petitioner. Basing on the decision taken by the Managing Committee, Petitioner was issued with the letter dtd.30.01.2015 under Annexure-9, with extension of the benefit of promotion to the TGT post. Petitioner accordingly joined in the TGT post on 01.02.2015 under Annexure-10. 8.2. It is also found from the yardstick issued by the Government under Annexure-2, one post of B.A. B.Ed., which is in the nature of a TGT post is admissible to the Institution in question. 8.3. In view of the same and considering the submissions made by learned Addl. Standing Counsel that prior approval has not been taken to extend the benefit of promotion in favour of the Petitioner, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned order dtd.29.11.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-1 directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision and consider the case of the Petitioner with regard to his promotion to the TGT post by according post facto approval. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision within a period of three (3) months from the Page 7 of 8 // 8 // date of receipt of this order. Relevancy and effect of the order available under Annexure-16 be also taken into consideration, if it is applicable to the claim of the Petitioner.
Decision
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Mar-2025 17:14:23 Page 8 of 8