MURALIDHAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the Majhiakhanda M. E. School in the district of Puri on 2-6-1970. His appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools. The reconstituted managing committee of the school which appointed the petitioner as teacher was quashed by the High Court in O. J. C. No. 730 of 1970 and the old managing committee started functioning. The High Court directed the D. I. of Schools to disburse the salary of the teachers for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Another person was appointed as a teacher in place of the petitioner by the old managing committee which started functioning again after the quashing of the reconstituted managing committee. But the petitioner has not been paid his dues as directed by the High Court in O. J. C. No. 318 of 1973 (Annexure-B). Petitioner has, therefore, prayed for directing opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay up his entire salary as per order of the High Court and according to Government rules regarding direct payment of salary to teachers of the aided schools.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that he functioned as a teacher and also took charge of the school from other teachers including the headmaster. When the old managing committee started functioning after quashing of the reconstituted managing committee, he has not been paid anything towards his salary, even though the High Court directed the managing committee to pay up the salary of the teachers.

(3.) In the return filed by opposite parties 1, 3 and 4, it has been stated that there was a managing committee of the school which was reconstituted. After reconstitution, the said managing committee started functioning. While the reconstituted managing committee was functioning, the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the school on 2-6-1970 and this appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools. Meanwhile, opposite party No. 2 filed O. J. C. No. 730 of 1970 challenging the reconstitution of the managing committee. The writ petition was allowed and it was held that the reconstituted managing committee was invalid. Therefore, all acts of the reconstituted managing committee have been considered void in law and, as such, the appointment of the petitioner by the said managing committee has become null and void. The managing committee has also treated the appointment of the petitioner as null and void. The petitioner never actually served in the school although he simply signed the attendance register from 2-6-1970, with the connivance of the reconstituted managing committee which was quashed by the High Court by order dt. 10/19-1-1971. Although the new managing committee was declared to be invalid, it continued to work till 15-2-1970 as the period from 19-1-1971 to 15-2-71 was occupied in communication of the High Court order to the concerned authorities and implementation of the order. Therefore, the petitioner simply signed the attendance Register in connivance with the reconstituted managing committee till it ceased to exist. In O. J. C. No. 318 of 1973, the High Court directed payment of salary to the staff of the school who were appointed by the managing committee, namely, the old managing committee, which was revived after the reconstituted managing committee was quashed and therefore, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the direction of the High Court. On enquiry into the question of continuance of the service of the petitioner, the D. I. of Schools made a report to the effect that the petitioner had not been allowed by the Secretary of opposite party No. 2 to join his post, but in the report it was written by mistake that he had been retrenched. But this was not the position. The petitioner was not at all retrenched and, as such, there was confusion in asking the managing committee, opposite party No. 2, to reinstate the petitioner. But, in fact, the appointment of the petitioner has been considered to be invalid because the managing committee which had appointed the petitioner was declared to be invalid. In the counter filed by opposite party No. 2, it is stated that though the High Court quashed the reconstituted managing committee, it continued functioning till 17-5-1971, when the old managing committee started functioning. The committee by which the petitioner was appointed has been held to be illegal. The petitioner was not appointed by the old managing committee which was a valid committee. Therefore, the petitioner was never a teacher of the school, inasmuch as he was not appointed by a valid managing committee. As such there was no scope to terminate the services of the petitioner or to obstruct him from working as a teacher. In 1974, the petitioner requested opposite party No. 2 to take him as a teacher, but opposite party No. 2 expressed that it was not possible to take the petitioner as a teacher. Thereafter, on 29-4-1974, the petitioner with some rowdy elements entered into the school and forcibly took away some records of the school by threatening the teachers. The headmaster reported the matter to the police and the managing committee was compelled to shift the classes to another building under intimation to opposite party No, 3. Opposite party No. 3 directed the petitioner to vacate his Illegal occupation of the school building.