JYOSTNA SATAPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.6.1998 of the Inspector of Schools, Khurda Circle, Khurda adjusting opp. party No. 5 in the High School against the vacant Trained Graduate Post (Annexure 3). The petitioner consequently prays for a direction to allow her Trained Graduate Scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the date when the vacancy was caused in the post of T.G. Teacher.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner's case is that she is working as an Assistant Teacher in Sri Satyasai High School, Unit III, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khurda since 21.7.1983. The school became eligible to receive grant in aid and accordingly, names were recommended by the Managing Committee for release of grant in aid which included the name of the petitioner. The Inspector of Schools, on verification of records, approved the appointment of the staff including the petitioner's appointment as a Classical Teacher with effect from 21.7.1983 vide Annexure 1. In the year 1995, the term of the Managing Committee having expired, an administrator was appointed to remain in charge of the Managing Committee. One Manjuli Mazumdar, who was holding the post of a Trained Arts Graduate Teacher, retired from service on 31.12.1995 as a result of which, a vacancy was caused in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher. The petitioner made a representation to the Inspector of Schools for adjusting her in the Trained Graduate Post since she had acquired B.Ed. qualification in the year 1985. It is claimed that she was taking classes as a Trained Graduate Teacher since after retirement of Smt. Mazumdar. The petitioner again made a representation on 10.7.1997 to the Inspector of Schools for appropriate action. On 18.5.1998, the Inspector of Schools forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Director, but ultimately by Annexure 3 dated 1.6.1998, opp. party No. 5 who was holding the post of Trained Matric in the Primary School was adjusted against the Trained Graduate Post in the High School. It is the petitioner's claim that she was within the standard staff of the High School whereas the opp. party No. 5 was a teacher in the Primary School and therefore, she would not have been adjusted against a Trained Graduate Post in the High School ignoring the claim of the petitioner, specially in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 21.7.1983 whereas the opp. party No. 5 was appointed in the Primary wing in the year 1985.

(3.) OPP . party No. 5 in her counter affidavit in para 6, however, asserts that although the school in question is a composite school having one management and one Headmaster, yet the Inspector of Schools was releasing grant in aid in favour of the Secondary wing and the D.I. of Schools was releasing grant in aid in favour of Primary wing. The opp. party No. 5 was receiving her monthly salary under direct payment scheme from District Inspector of Schools through the Headmaster of the composite schools. The allegation in the writ petition that both wings have separate entity have been denied. The opp. party No. 5 asserts that since the petitioner was appointed as a Classical Teacher without B.Ed. qualification in the year 1983 and acquired B.Ed. qualification in the year 1986 much after her, she has no claim to the post. The opp. party No. 5 has taken the plea that teachers serving against Ex cadre post of a Classical Teacher cannot be promoted/adjusted to a cadre post of a Trained Graduate Teacher. It is specifically asserted that the Administrative Officer incharge of the Management of the School considered the case of both of the petitioner and the opp. party No. 5 since opp. party No. 5 is senior to the petitioner as she acquired B. Ed. qualification earlier to her, recommended her case to the Director, Secondary Education for approval of her promotion/adjustment in the Trained Graduate Post. A copy of the letter of the Administrative Officer is annexed as Annexure B/5.