DR. BAISHNAB CH. DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are in challenge of order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Orissa in G.I.A. Case No. 18 of 2010. Petitioners before the Tribunal are the appellants and O.P. Nos. 1 to 8 are the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, respectively, in F.A.O. No. 65 of 2012. O.P. No. 6 in the G.I.A. Case is the appellant in F.A.O. No. 155 of 2012. To avoid possible confusion, the parties hereinafter will be described in accordance with their respective nomenclature in the cause title of the G.I.A. Case.

(2.) The petitioners moved the Tribunal under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (for short, the Act) to quash the recommendation made by the A.D.M., Cuttack vide his letter dated 7.11.2009, with further prayer for according approval to the petitioner's appointment and for release of Grant-in-Aid (G.I.A.) in their favour against the respective post they hold in Harekrushna Mahatab Adarsha Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Chandinichowk, Cuttack. The petitioners claim that they are teaching and non-teaching staff of the said educational institution.

(3.) The substance of the case as advanced by the petitioners is that after the Institution became eligible to receive minimum G.I.A. with effect from 1.6.1990 the then Governing Body of the institution made recommendation vide Annexure-5 for approval of the appointment of the petitioners and for release of G.I.A. in their favour. The Director, Secondary Education, Orissa (O.P. No. 2) after necessary verification made recommendation to the Department of School and Mass Education, Government of Orissa for approval of the appointment of the petitioners as well as for release of G.I.A. In the meanwhile some disputes relating to constitution of the Governing Body came to surface. Pursuant to order passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 6542 of 1997, the Director instructed the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies to remain in-charge of the Management of the Institution till a new Governing Body was constituted. While continuing as such, the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies after necessary examination of records passed order dated 15.4.1999 allowing the petitioners to resume their duties and disallowing some outsiders including O.P. Nos. 6 to 8 to work in the Institution. In the meanwhile an advertisement was issued for submission of individual claim by the teaching and non-teaching staff of Sanskrit Colleges in the State. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their individual claim to the Department of Higher Education. While their claim was pending consideration, the petitioners came to know that as per the decisions of the State Government the Additional District Magistrates of respective districts were required to obtain individual claim applications from teaching and non-teaching staff of different educational institutions within their respective jurisdiction and to forward the same to the Regional Director of Education, Bhubaneswar. In response thereto, the A.D.M., Cuttack in the capacity of the President of the Governing Body of the educational institution in question recommended names of O.P. Nos. 4 to 8 who are never the staff of the institution. The petitioners further assert that in view of the order passed in OJC No. 6542 of 1997, the A.D M. had no authority to claim to be the President of the Governing Body and as such he could not have recommended names of the persons who are never the staff of the Institution. Thus, being aggrieved by such recommendation, the petitioners filed the G.I.A. Case before the learned Tribunal.