CHARULATA SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by one Charulata Senapati as to why the order, vide Annexure-4 to the extent the findings of the Director that the petitioner is not entitled to get her salary during her termination period shall not be quashed and as to why the State opposite parties shall not be directed to pay the salary as per the grant-in-aid principle since the institution became eligible to get the same till today and with a direction for release of arrears within a stipulated period of time.

(2.) In making the above prayers, the petitioner submitted that by illegally terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 25.02.1986 the Secretary had illegally appointed the opposite party no. 6 as Headmistress-in-Charge of the institution. It is further submitted that the petitioner challenged the said order of termination before the Inspector of Schools-opposite party no. 4 and the said authority vide his order dated 26.06.1986 set aside the order of termination holding that the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service till date. While the mater stood thus, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 17.03.1993 in disposing the writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 2217 of 1990, a direction was issued to find out as to whether Smt. Charulata Senapati, the petitioner, is the Headmistress or Smt. Dipti Pratihari is the Headmistress. Following the direction of this Court, the Director of Secondary Education took up the issue. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the Director took up the issue, as directed and by order under Annexure-4 he held that the termination of the petitioner was bad and the appointment of Smt. Dipti Pratihari was ipso-facto invalid. Consequently declaring Smt. Pratihari's continuance as Headmistress-in-Charge as invalid but to the ill luck of the petitioner the Director, Higher Education dis-entitled the petitioner from getting her salary for the entire period. It is, challenging this part of the Direction of the Director, Higher Education, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming the relief as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) Per contra, opposite party nos. 1 to 4 by filing a counter affidavit while justifying the decision of the Director submitted that it is on the request of the Director, directing the Inspector of Schools to adjust opposite party no. 6 against vacancy caused by concerned trained graduate teacher and remaining in-charge of the Headmistress till the post of a regular Headmistress or until further orders from the Directorate. Consequently basing on a resolution of the Managing Committee, opposite party no. 6 was accommodated. In paragraph-5, the State opposite parties specifically averred that in the event it is decided by this Court that the petitioner is entitled to her salary during the termination period, the opposite party no. 6 will obviously have no claim for that period or else, it will lead to a anomalous situation leading to double payment.