SUBASH CHANDRA SUTAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ application have challenged the legality of the enquiry report submitted by the inspector of Schools. Kendrapara Circle in Annexure-9 and have prayed for a direction to opposite party No.3 to release the salary components of the petitioner with effect from the date the institution became an aided educational institution and other employees of the institution received their salary components from out of the grant-in-aid given by the State Government under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, 1974.

(2.) Rudra Krushna Ucha Sikshya Niketan, Gunthi in the district of Kendrapara was established in the year 1983. The school got recognition by the Director as well as Board of Secondary Education, Orissa in the year 1985. On 12-12-1985 the Managing Committee of the school was approved by the competent authority which continued up to 12-12-1988. The first batch of the students from the school appeared directly under the Board of Secondary Education in the High School Certificate Examination for the year 1986. On 18-9-1987 petitioner No. 1 was appointed as head peon pursuant to resoution No.5 of the Managing Committee of the School and he joined the post on 12-10-1987. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as second peon by the Managing Committee of the institution in its resolution No.7 and he joined the post on 1-10-1988.While both the petitioners were continuing as such, the term of the Managing Committee expired on 12-12-1988. The outgoing Managing Committee did not submit proposal for constitution of the new Managing Committee 90 days prior to the expiry of its term as per the provisions of the Management Rules, 1980. Therefore, after expiry of the term on 2-12-1988, the Managing Committee became defunct and the Inspector of Schools functioned as the Managing Committee of the institution. On 16-4-1990 the school became eligible to come within the fold of grant-in-aid in accordance with the grant-in-aid principles. After the school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid, the institution submitted proposals for approval of the teaching and non-teaching staff before the Inspector of Schools for the purpose of sanction of grant-in-aid. The Inspector of Schools in turn accorded approval for appointment of the employees, but did not approve the appointment of both the petitioners. On 19-12-1991, the Inspector of Schools directed the Additional Inspector of Schools, (VE), Cuttack-III circle to conduct an enquiry and report with regard to the allegations made against the petitioners relating to their appointments in the said institution. The Additional Inspector of Schools enquired into the matter and submitted a report on 19-12-1991 recommending the approval of appointment of the petitioners taking the date of appointment of petitioner No.1 as 12-10-1987 and petitioner No.2 as 1-10-1988. Another Class-IV employee namely Akhaya Barik who had been appointed as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper was also recommended in the said report. After receipt of the said recommendation as well as the report of opposite party No.3 by order dated 27-1-1992 the Inspector of Schools approved the appointment of the petitioner No.1 as peon and appointment of petitioner No.2 as Science Attendant on the basis of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee as well as the report of the Additional In inspector of Schools. The Managing Committee which was functioning between 1985 and 1988 had some difference with the Headmaster of the institution. Though the petitioners were validly appointed by the Managing Committee and their appointments had been approved, the petitioners were not allowed to put their signature in the attendance register after the Inspector of Schools passed the order of approval. The matter was reported by the petitioners to the Inspector of Schools which was enquired through the Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer of the Inspector of Schools and the Headmaster of the institution was asked to explain as to why the petitioners are not being allowed to put signature in the attendance register. While the matter stood thusd by order dated 20-7-1993, the Inspector of Schools. Cuttack-III Circle passed an order cancelling the approval made in favour of the petitioners from 27-1-1990. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in O.J.C.No. 1184 of 1993 on the ground that after bifurcation and creation of Kendrapara District, the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack-III Circle had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order cancelling the earlier order of approval. This Court disposed of the said writ application on 7-9-1993 directing the Inspector of Schools, Kendrapara Circle to make an enquiry, cause verification of records and consider the claim of the parties. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in the aforesaid writ application, the Inspector of Schools. Kendrapara conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to the Advocate General. Orissa in its letter dated 8-4-1994. In the said report, the Inspector of Schools declared the appointment of the petitioners as invalid on the ground that no procedure for appointment of the petitioners as peons had been followed and the Managing Committee should have requested the employment officer to sponsor names for such appointment. It is also reported that the Managing Committee should have constituted the Selection Board for appointment of peons and should have followed the principles of the O.R.V. Act. This report of the Inspector of Schools. Kendrapara Circle is under challenge in this writ application.

(3.) Four sets of counters have been filed by the opposite parties. In the counters filed by opposite party No.4, opposite party Nos. 6 & 7, opposite party Nos. 3 & 5 more less same stand has been taken. It is stated in the counter affidavits filed by the aforesaid opposite parties that the petitioners were never appointed in the school by the Managing Committee of the institution which was functioning in between 1985 and 1988. The specific case of the opposite parties is that the Secretary of the Ex-Managing Committee took away the records from the possession of the Headmaster of the institution, manipulated the same showing the appointment of the petitioners and therefore, there was no appointment in the eye of law. Reliance is also placed on the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Schools, Kendrapara Circle by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.