ALOK CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) THE order of the State Government dated 14.1.2002 disallowing the proposal of the college for validation of the services of the petitioner under the Validation Act, 1998, in Annexure -7 is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) UNDER Sub -section (2) of Section 24 -B of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order appertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to make an application to the Tribunal for redressal of the grievance; Sub -section (1) contemplates that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate all disputes and differences between the Managing Committee, or as the case may be, the Governing Body of any private educational institution or any teacher or employee of the State Government or the State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government and relating to or connected with eligibility, entitlement, payment or non -payment of grant -in -aid. The proposal for validation of the petitioner's appointment under the Validation Act was mooted by the College for the purpose of validation in order to make the petitioner eligible and entitled to payment of grant -in -aid. In similar other case also, this Court has taken the view that such a matter is governed within the scope of Section 24 -B of the Act and, as such, the aggrieved party is to move the Tribunal in application under Section 24 -B of the Act. The learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Joginder Patjoshi and Anr., 2003 (8) Supreme 298 to contend that while interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate and if a provision of law is misused or subjected to abuse of the process of law, it is the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if necessary. However, it is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the Court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open -to the Courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. We are not able, to appreciate, how this decision supports the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in State of Orissa and Anr. v. Pratap Kumar Nayak and Anr., 93 (2002) C.L.T. 79 (SC) in support of his contention, but in our considered opinion, the decision is totally inapplicable to the fact of the present case.