STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SARADA PRASANNA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 24C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the State has challenged the judgment dated 27.06.2008 and order No. 9 dated 27.06.2008 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No. 187 of 2007.

(2.) THE G.I.A. Case was filed by the Respondent No. 1 for validation of his appointment as Lecturer in Economics in the concerned college, before the Tribunal. The Respondent No. 1 claimed to be appointed in the 2nd post of Lecturer in Economics since 22.11.1986 in Kandarpur College (an aided educational institution since 18.10.1985). His case was that the 2nd post is admissible to the college since 1987 -88. Proposal was submitted, as at Annexure -3 to the G.I.A. Case, and the Director of Higher Education (Appellant No. 2 herein) also recommended after verification of record for release of grant -in -aid in favour of the Respondent No. 1 vide Annexure -6 to the G.I.A. case. As the State Government till the date of filing of the G.I.A. case did not validate the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 and rejected his claim for grant -in -aid, the Respondent No. 1 filed the said application before the Tribunal alleging discrimination against him and seeking a direction for validation and approval of his appointment against the 2nd post and to release the grant -in -aid.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State on behalf of the Appellant reiterated the stand taken by it before the Tribunal that the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 has not been done following proper procedure. Though it was contended that the Respondent No. 1 misled the learned Tribunal by suppressing complete documents while filing the G.I.A. Case, but nothing substantial has been brought before this Court to support such contention. It was contended that under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 provides that once a privately managed educational institution became aided, the Governing Body of the said institution can at best make an ad hoc appointment against a teaching post for a period of three months hence, there being no power of the Governing Body to give appointment of any teaching staff permanently after receiving aid, the question of sanction and giving aid to the incumbent holding the post without sanction of law does not arise and, therefore, the case of the Respondent No. 1 that his case was recommended under Annexure -6 for release of grant -in -aid and he was entitled for the same is fallacious and misleading. It was also contended that the +2 wing and the +3 wing of the college received grant -in -aid on two different dates, i.e., with effect from 01.06.1986 and 01.06.1994. Since Validation Act, 1998 can only be extended to a lecturer of an aided college, who was appointed in the college against an approved and admissible post by the Governing Body in between the period from 1st January, 1984 to 31st December, 1992 question of extending the benefit of the said Act to the present Respondent No. 1 does not arise as the student strength of +2 wing including +2 Arts and Commerce did not justify the 2nd post of Economics.