NALINI PRAVA DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ application is, 'for a direction to the opposite parties 2 and 3 allow her grant -in -aid scale of pay in the post of trained graduate teacher with effect from 1.3.1 987, for quashing the order of approval of appointments of opposite parties 6 and 7 vide Annexures -3 and for issuance of such other appropriate direction as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.'

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on or about 4.11.1982 and subsequently she was permitted to continue on regular basis with effect from 1.2.1983. It is her case that in January, 1990, a letter was received from opposite party No. 2 allowing the staff of the school to receive grant -in -aid scale of pay and though the names of some junior Assistant Teachers, in particular, opposite party No. 6, who was initially appointed on 7.8.1 984 and entered into the school sometime in the year 1 986, found place in the order of approval, her name was not included therein. It is further submitted that the petitioner possessed B.Sc, B.Ed, qualification and in spite of number of representations to that effect, she has not been approved and held entitled to receive grant -in -aid scale of pay in the trained graduate post though her juniors, namely, opposite parties 6 and 7, have been permitted to get the said benefit. It is her further case that she worked as an Assistant Teacher in the said school without any break and was entitled to regularisation under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1989 and consequences flowing therefrom.

(3.) OPPOSITE parties 4, 6 and 7 have also filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that they have no objection if the petitioner's appointment is approved for which recommendation has already been made. It is, however, pleaded that the petitioner is not justified in challenging the approval of their appointments nor has the order of approval been obtained by manipulation of documents of records, as submitted: by the petitioner. It is their case that opposite party No. 6 was a trained graduate having experience as a Trained Graduate Teacher and as such, he was appointed by the Managing Committee as Headmaster by due process of selection. Denying the averments that opposite party No. 7 was a regular employee under the administrative control of opposite party No. 5, it is stated that he was a trained graduate of 1980 and was appointed on 20.7.1981 : as the first T.G. Arts Teacher, while the petitioner, was neither a trained hand nor was she appointed through a selection process against a sanctioned post. Her appointment was against an additional sanction post - not being a sanctioned post.