BISHNUPRIYA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is a Classical Teacher has filed this appeal under Section 24 -C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short "the Act") assailing the judgment dated 28.03.2011 passed by the State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No. 113 of 2007 vide Annxure -8 and further seeking for a direction that the respondent no.5 being not an existing staff of the School and her services have been terminated w.e.f. 1995, she is not entitled to the relief granted by the appropriate forum.

(2.) THE short fact of the case, in hand, is that the respondent no.5 was appointed as a Classical Teacher on 07.12.1989 in Shree Jagannath Girls' High School, Barbatia in the district of Balasore and she joined the said post on 11.12.1989. Due to unauthorized absence for a long period, a show cause notice was issued calling upon her to submit explanation on 05.01.1994, to which she did not respond. Then another show cause notice was issued on 02.03.1994 to which she also did not respond and continued to remain absent unauthorizedly. Therefore, the Managing Committee of the School passed a resolution on 08.10.1994 to conduct an enquiry against respondent no.5 for her misconduct. On the basis of the inquiry report, the Managing Committee decided to terminate the services of respondent no.5 by passing a resolution on 13.01.1995. Thereafter, following a due procedure of selection, the present appellant was appointed as a Classical Teacher on 15.03.1995.

(3.) MR . K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter declaring the termination of respondent no.5 as illegal and further declaration that she is deemed to be continuing in service and is entitled to all service benefits. It is urged that respondent no.5 having been terminated from service w.e.f. 13.01.1995, i.e., prior to the notification dated 06.06.1995 notifying the said School to receive grant -in -aid, the State Education Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to declare the termination of respondent no.5 as illegal as the termination was made by the managing committee during the unaided period. Therefore, appeal lies before the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa in terms of the Government instruction dated 27.03.1983. Instead of approaching the appropriate forum, the respondent no.5 approached learned Education Tribunal. He further submits that the learned Tribunal having no jurisdiction, adjudicated the matter without application of mind and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside and the appointment of the appellant be approved and GIA admissible to the post held by her should be released in her favour. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Jalanda Delanga Ucha Bidyapitha v. State of Orissa and other, 1993 1 OrissaLR 77, Laxmidhar Pati and others v. State of Orissa and others, 1996 1 OrissaLR 152, Nityananda Lenka and others v. State of Orissa and others,2011 1 OrissaLR 524, Arjun Chandra Jena v. Director of Secondary Education Orissa, Bhubaneswar and others,1988 66 CutLT 293, Govinda Chandra Rout v. Managing Committee of Chitrotpala High School and others, 1985 59 CutLT 356, Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia and Ors. V. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors., 2011 AIR(SC) 1140, Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Ltd., v. Surendra Das and 2 Ors., 2009 Supp2 OrissaLR 797.