GAYADHAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the Madhupur High School in the district of Cuttack in 1964. When a vacancy arose in the post of the Headmaster of the said school, his case was considered by the managing committee and he was placed in charge of the office of the Headmaster by resolution dated 14.6.1988. By resolution dated 29.5.88, it was resolved that he should be appointed as the Headmaster and the managing committee submitted the proposal to the Inspector of Schools for approval under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 as it stood before amendment which came into force with effect from 3.6.88. The Inspector of Schools forwarded his case to the Director of Secondary Education by letter dated 8.8.88 and sought approval. When no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 4206 of 1989 and this Court by order dated 20.12.89 directed the appropriate authority to dispose of his case within one month from the date of the order. Annexure -1 is the order dated 13.2.90 informing the petitioner that the Director rejected the proposal in view of the amendment and incorporation of the provision by way of Sub -rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules which prescribes that vacancy in the post of a Headmaster of an aided High School would be filled up from the select list prepared by the Selection Board in the manner prescribed. The petitioner challenges the said decision on the ground that the vacancy having arisen prior to the amendment which came into force with effect from 3.6.88, this case would be governed by the provisions contained in Rule 8(2)(b) as it stood prior to amendment, and not by Rule 8(3) as incorporated by amendment. - -

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has referred us to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Y.V. Rangaiah and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 852, it has been held : '.... The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended Rules.... We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the new Rules.' To the same effect is the another decision of the Supreme Court in P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 405, where it was held : '.... If a candidate applies for a post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service Commission in accordance with recruitment Rules he acquires right to be considered for selection in accordance with the then existing Rules. This right cannot be affected by amendment of any Rule unless the amending Rule is retrospective in nature.'

(3.) THE writ application is accordingly allowed. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.