KAMINILATA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit on 12/9/2009 on contractual basis in Biren Mitra Memorial Women's College, Cuttack. The said College is an aided educational institution. While continuing as such, an advertisement was published on 24/8/2013 inviting candidates for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. The Petitioner, though continuing in the post applied pursuant to the said advertisement. An interview was conducted in which the Petitioner stood first. She was issued a fresh appointment order on 24/12/2013 as Lecturer in Sanskrit on consolidated pay of Rs.2000.00 per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.5,300.00. On 4/5/2017, the Principal of the College (Opposite Party No. 4) issued an office order disengaging the Petitioner and some other Lecturers from their services w.e.f. 1/5/2017. Neither any prior notice was issued nor any explanation was called for from the Petitioner. No reason was also ascribed for taking such action. Being aggrieved thus, the Petitioner has approached this Court claiming the following relief:

(2.) No counter affidavit is filed by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) The Governing Body of the Institution (Opposite Party No. 3) and the Principal of the College (Opposite Party No. 4) have filed a joint counter. In the said counter, it is stated that in view of the restrictions issued by the State Government vide order dtd. 20/4/1998, the appointment of the Petitioner being without prior permission of the State Government is not valid. Moreover, such appointment was made without resolution of the Governing Body nor approval of the appropriate authority. The Petitioner was appointed on consolidated remuneration which was conditional in nature. The Regional Director of Education, Bhubaneswar vide order dtd. 24/9/2014 specifically directed that no appointment should be made without his prior permission and in case of any violation, the Opposite Party No. 4 will be held responsible. Therefore, when the Opposite Party No. 4 came to know that the appointment of the Petitioner is without prior permission of the authorities concerned, he passed the impugned order disengaging the Petitioner and others from their services. It is further stated that since the Petitioner's appointment was invalid to begin with, she does not have the locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Further, the instructions issued by the Regional Director of Education in his letter dtd. 10/8/2015 with regard to disengagement of contractual/guest faculties have been referred to and it is stated that the Petitioner was disengaged as there is no requirement for engagement of Lecturer in Sanskrit as per the prescribed work load. The instructions issued on 19/9/2016 of the Regional Director with regard to engagement of guest faculty was also referred to.