PARBATI GHADEI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Asst. Teacher against a Trained Graduate Post in Anchalika Girls' High School, Saradpur in the district of Bhadrak as per appointment order dtd. 6/8/1993. She was untrained at that time but acquired B.Ed. qualification in 1994. The Managing Committee appointed her as Headmaster on 20/7/2001. She was prevented from discharging her duties on 27/7/2007. She filed an appeal before the Regional Director of Education, Bhubaneswar, which was dismissed. She challenged such dismissal of the appeal before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 921 of 2009 and by order dtd. 1/10/2009, this Court directed de-novo disposal of the appeal. By order dtd. 10/10/2011, the Regional Director set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Against such order, one Nirupama Mishra approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28449 of 2011. This Court modified the order of the Regional Director only to the extent of allowing the said Nirupama Mishra to continue as Headmistress of the charge of the School. The petitioner joined in her post from 14/10/2011. Her service was approved by order dtd. 14/8/2012 and block grant was released from 1/4/2008. As per the ORSP Rules, 2008, the Institution became eligible for 100% block grant w.e.f. 1/4/2013 and as such, the petitioner was also eligible for 100 % block grant, but it is alleged that all other employees of the Institution were extended 100% block grant except the petitioner, who was granted 60% on the ground that she had not completed 8 years of services as required under Clause-5 of the Government Resolution dtd. 10/6/2013. According to the petitioner, the Institution being a Girls' High School comes within Clause-5(e) of the Resolution dtd. 10/6/2013 and therefore, the individual employees are also similarly eligible. She submitted a representation to the Director, Secondary Education, but to no avail. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) The case of the Institution in question is, the writ petition is not maintainable since alternative statutory remedy provided under Sec. 24-B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short the 'Act, 1969') has not been exhausted by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the fact that she had filed GIA Case No. 690 of 2012 before the State Education Tribunal claiming self same relief. It is further stated that the very appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher against a trained graduate post on 6/8/1993 is invalid for want of necessary qualification. Since she was engaged as Sikshya Sahayak from 2008 to 2011, the said period cannot be counted towards regular service for the purpose of grant-in-aid. The petitioner was therefore, rightly allowed block grant @ 60% from the date of re-absorption in the institution.