RAGHUNATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 24 (C) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugning the judgment passed by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No. 135 of 2006 on 11.9.2009.

(2.) FACTS of the case reveal that the Chrome Nagar Bidyapitha at Ferrochrome Plant, Jajpur Road in the district of Jajpur was established and accorded recognition in the year 1985 -86. Thus, it became a recognized educational institution as defined under section 3 (p) of the Act. Both the appellant and respondent no. 5 claimed to have been appointed in the said school as T.G. (PCM) teachers. After the school was notified to be an aided educational institution on 6.5.1995 with effect from 1.6.1995, the Managing Committee of the school vide its resolution dated l5.10.1995 resolved to sent the name of the teachers of the said school for approval in the prescribed proforma basing on the date of joining of the said teachers chronologically and discipline -wise. Accordingly, the staff position was submitted by the Managing Committee of the school before the Inspector of Schools on 13.10.1995. The Inspector of Schools struck down the name of the appellant on the ground that he was not appointed against any sanctioned post and no more post was admissible to the school as per the prescribed yardstick dated 8.7.1981. Upon coming to know of the same, the appellant made a representation to the Inspector of Schools. The Inspector of Schools referred the matter for approval of service to the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa vide his letter dated 24.11.1995 mentioning therein that the respondent no. 5 was appointed against the post of T.G. (PCM) teacher and she has undergone B.Ed. training as an in - service teacher. It was further mentioned by him that the appellant ­ Raghunath Mishra, was appointed as a teacher on 1.9.1989 after the appointment of the respondent no. 5 when there was no post for him in the standard staffing pattern as per the yardstick. The Deputy Director (NGS) by his letter dated 19.7.1997 directed the Inspector of Schools to give approval to the service of the appellant as he is senior on the basis of date of passing of the B.Ed. examination. Being aggrieved by the non -approval of service, the respondent no. 5 approached this Court in OJC No. 869 of 1996. This Court vide order dated 8.11.2006 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent no. 5 to file a G.I.A. Case in the State Education Tribunal, pursuant to which, the aforesaid G.I.A. Case was filed by the respondent no. 5 before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE appellant's case before the Tribunal was that the respondent no. 5, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had no training qualification and it cannot be said that she was appointed to a Trained Graduate post. After Sabita Guru submitted her resignation, the respondent no. 5 was appointed as a Science Teacher for urgent requirement of the school, as the academic session has already started by then. He further asserted that since a qualified trained teacher was to be appointed as against the admissible post of Sabita Guru, the appellant, pursuant to the advertisement made application along with others and faced interview and got the appointment on being selected on 21.8.1989. He joined the school on 1.9.1989.