HARJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these appeals seek to quash the judgments dated 21-6-2011 and 13-6-2011 passed by the State Educational Tribunal in G.I.A. Case No. 319 of 2009 and G.I.A. Case No. 123 of 2009 respectively on the ground that instead of adjudicating the matter, the learned Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for consideration of the grant-in-aid matters fixing the time limit in the impugned order, which is without jurisdiction.

(2.) The short fact of the case in hand, is that Municipal College, Rourkela was established with Intermediate Course in the year 1978 and got the Government concurrence and affiliation from the Sambalpur University in the year 1978-79. The college in question was established and managed by the Rourkela Educational Development Society (REDS), Rourkela in the year 1978. All the appointments were also made by the said educational agency. The college was notifed to be an aided institution w.e.f. 1-6-1983 but the approval of the staff members of the college was made by the Director on 25-8-1988 pursuant to the Government Order dated 28-10-1985. Therefore, the college in question is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act and Rules framed thereunder from time to time. The college is imparting studies both in +2 and +3 Arts, Science and Commerce streams and coming within category-I Institution as defined in the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. Due to increase in roll strength of the college in the science stream, the Governing body of the college decided to appoint Demonstrators in different departments and accordingly due advertisement was issued, pursuant to which candidates submitted their application and following due procedure of selection of Demonstrators, necessary appointment orders were issued by the college authority on 29-9-1989. Pursuant to such appointment order, the Demonstrator of different departments joined in different dates. But due to non-grant of grant-in-aid, they approached the learned Educational Tribunal ventilating their grievance by filing G.I.A. cases which are as follows :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_46_LAWS(ORI)5_2014.htm</FRM>

(3.) Mr. S. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the judgments passed by the learned Tribunal in G.I.A. Case Nos. 319 and 123 of 2009 on the ground that the Presiding Officer, State Educational Tribunal instead of deciding the matter in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act could not have referred the matter to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the State of Orissa represented through Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education, Odisha and the Director, Higher Education, Odisha directing them to dispose of the grant-in-aid matter within three months from the date of communication of the order. He vehemently urged that without adjudicating the disputes, the learned Presiding Officer, State Educational Tribunal has no jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the authority for consideration and law does not permit the Tribunal to remit the matter back to the authority for consideration without adjudicating the same. He also alleges bias against the Presiding Officer, State Educational Tribunal while adjudicating the dispute on the question that similarly situated person, namely, Manoj Kumar Tripathy, who has approached the learned Educational Tribunal by filing G.I.A. Case No. 107 of 2009, the Tribunal directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 therein to verify the justification of the 2nd post of Demonstrator in Physics and to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding his approval of appointment and release of grant-in-aid in accordance with the law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order, basing upon which he has received the said benefits from the Government vide letter No. HE/FE-IV(A)-CASE-0680/2012-25810/HE, dated 19-10-2012 though the date of appointment of Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathy vis-a-vis the appellants is the same and as such, concurrence of approval has been made by the authority in respect of the posts held by them. Hence, the learned Tribunal could not have made any discrimination, rather should have adjudicated the same by extending the benefits as admissible to the appellants at par with the case of Manoj Kumar Tripathy.