SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE, SRI AUROBINDO INSTITUTE OF INTEGRAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH Vs. STATE EDUCATION TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ application is to the order of the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, whereby the appeals filed by opposite parties 6, 7, 8 and 9 against the order of termination of their service, were allowed setting aside their termination with direction for their reinstatement in service with all benefits including the salary for the intervening period.

(2.) THE institution in question is functioning in the name and style of "Sri Aurobindo institute of Integral Education & Research" at Sambalpur. The case of the Petitioner is that this is a minority institution which has a right to administer it without any outside control. That in exercise of this right to control, the institution had appointed opposite parties 6, 7, 8 and 9 as workers on a fixed honorarium of Rs. 375/ - to cope with the extra teaching work which was necessary. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the institution being an integral educational institution the yardstick prescribed is not applicable to it. It is also submitted that it is not an aided institution and as such, the provisions selection 10A if the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, "the Act") are not applicable to it, and therefore, the Orissa Education Tribunal committed an error in setting aside the order of termination for noncompliance of the provisions contained in section 10 A of the Act.

(3.) THE case of opposite patties 6, 7, 8 and 9 is that since the name of the school has been included in the list of newly aided educational institutions, it has become eligible to receive grant -in -aid and it is covered by the definition of Section 3(b) of the Act and once the school is treated as an aided institution, the provisions of section l0A of the said Act became applicable to it. As regards the contention that it is a minority institution, it is submitted that Sri Aurobinda Institute of Integral Education and Research was neither a religious nor a linguistic institution and, therefore, it cannot be termed as a minority institution within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act.