DINABANDHU DEY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English with effect from 21-11-1983 in Khaira College, Khaira in the district of Balasore and the petitioner joined as Lecturer in English in the said college on 21-11-1983. The College became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from academic session 1985-86. The Principal of Khaira College submitted the records of the college for verification of staff of the college for creation of additional posts including that of the petitioner by letter dated 22-7-1992 but the Director of Higher Education did not pass any order. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (O.J.C. No. 2251 of 1989) which was disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in O.J.C. Nos. 358 and 359 of 1985. Thereafter, the Director of Higher Education rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he had not secured 54 per cent in M.A. in English which was the minimum marks for being appointed as Lecturer. The petitioner again moved this Court in O.J.C. No. 6796 of 1995 which was disposed of with a direction to the Director to consider the proposal in the light of the judgment dated 5-2-1992 in O.J.C. No. 2255 of 1989 (Laxmikanta Padhi v. State of Orissa). Thereafter, the Director of Higher Education passed orders on 24-8-1996 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to approval of his appointment as the third post of English Lecturer held by him was not admissible to the college on the basis of the workload for +2 classes. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (O.J.C. No. 13371 of 1996) and on 28-10-1998, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by calling upon the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, to re-consider the matter for which the Principal of the college will submit fresh materials justifying approval of a third post in English in the college within two weeks and on receipt of the said particulars, the Director will act in accordance with the circulars and orders referred to in paragraph 4 of the said order dated 28-10-1998 of the Court. Para 4 of the said order dated 28-1-1998 in O.J.C. No. 13371 of 1996 is quoted hereinbelow :

(2.) Mr. B. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it will be clear from the impugned order that the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, has taken into consideration the Government Letter No. 37172/EYS, dated 8-8-1983 in which yardstick for teaching posts in Government and non-Government colleges with effect from the session 1983-84 has been laid down. But, as per the said Government latter dated 8-8-1983, the post of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Khaira College was justified. He referred to the chart enclosed along with the proposal of the Principal of the college dated 14-11-1998 sent to the Deputy Director, N.G.C.I., Directorate of Higher Education, Orissa, to show that if the +3 Ist year Arts Stream is excluded, the total number of classes in the subject per week will work out to 66 and as per the letter dated 8-8-1983 of the Government, 3 Lecturers of English would be justified for the college. Mr. Routray also placed before us the chart annexed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 as Annexure-A/2 to show that there was no difference in the said two charts except that two tutorial classes in the chart enclosed along with the proposal of the Principal submitted to the Directorate of Higher Education, Orissa, have been taken as one tutorial class in the chart annexed to the counter- affidavit as Annexure-A/2. He submitted that it will be clear from the letter dated 1-5-1984 of the Directorate of Higher Education in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, that two tutorial periods per week for all subjects except Commerce for +2 Course is to be taken and in the letter dated 8-8-1983 each tutorial group was to comprise of 24 students. Hence, the Principal has taken the correct number of tutorial classes in the proposal. Mr. Das, Additional Government Advocate for the State, however, relied on the averments in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and submitted that the calculation given in Annexure-A/2 in respect of the workload for English subject in the college, was correct.

(3.) For appreciating the contention of Mr. Routray, relevant extracts from the workload for admissibility of teaching post worked out for English subject in the enclosure to the proposal submitted by the Principal, Khaira College, Khaira on 14-11-1998 in Annexure-5 and from the detailed workload of the college in English subject worked out by the Directorate of Higher Education in Annexure-A/2 for the session 1986-87 are given hereinbelow :