SMITA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in GIA Case No. 354 of 2011 in State Education Tribunal, Orissa has filed this appeal impugning the judgment dated 17.3.2012 (Annexure-17) passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal in the said G.I.A Case upholding the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha (opposite party no. 2) declaring respondent no.4 senior to the appellant and directing to approve her post entitling her to get Block Grant against the post of Demonstrator in Psychology in Bhadrak Women's College, Bhadrak.

(2.) The short facts of the case in hand are that the appellant was appointed as Demonstrator in Psychology in Bhadrak Women's College, Bhadrak on 4.10.1991, pursuant to which she joined the post on 28.10.1991. By the time she joined, respondent no.4 had neither been appointed nor promoted from any other post to the post of Demonstrator in Psychology of the college. Subsequently by forging college records, respondent no.4 was shown to have been promoted to the post of Library Assistant (Demonstrator in Psychology) vide office order No. 87 dated 9.8.1990 (Annexure-4) by the Principal of the college. On the basis of the said office order No. 87 dated 9.8.1990, respondent no.4 claimed to have been appointment in the post of Demonstrator in Psychology of the college vide Annexure-5. The appellant raised objection before the college authorities with regard to such manipulation/ forging of records, but no action was taken on that. The Principal again manipulated the records and sent proposal in favour of respondent no.4 to the Director (opposite party no.2) for approval of appointment of opposite party no.4 and release of grant-in-aid for the post of Demonstrator in Psychology stated to be held by her. The same was objected to by the appellant before the Director. The further case of the appellant was that the very entry of respondent no.4 into the college by way of appointment as Library Assistant, subsequently promoted as Laboratory Assistant (Demonstrator) in Psychology Department was also in clear violation of the service rules followed in such colleges. Without considering the same, the learned Tribunal passed the judgment holding that in absence of any statutory rules or administrative instruction for fixation of inter se seniority of aided educational institutions, discretion lay with the appointing authority to determine the inter se seniority and since one post of Demonstrator in Psychology was admissible for the +2 Wing of the College, respondent no.4 being senior to the appellant, her service was rightly approved entitling her to receive the Block Grant.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the order of the learned Tribunal mainly on two grounds; (i) the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment, Annexure-17, without considering the materials available on record; and (ii) when respondent no.4 had been appointed by a forged promotion order and was declared as senior to the appellant, the direction for release of Block Grant for the post illegally held by her was an out-come of sheer non-application of mind. With such contention, he urges to quash the order of the learned Tribunal. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Batakrushna Adhikari v. State of Orissa and others, 2008 106 CutLT 212; Meghmala and others v. G. Narasimha Reddy and others, 2010 8 SCC 383; Surendra Kumar Dalmia v. Suryaa Sponge Iron Ltd. and others, 2011 Supp2 OrissaLR 932 and an un-reported decision of this Court in the case of Sri Durlava Chandra Nayak v. State of Orissa and others, OJC No.10088 of 1999 disposed of on 19.2.2003.