RUKMANI PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was the applicant in G.I.A. Case No. 258 of 2007 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar rejecting her claim for approval of her appointment and release of grant-in-aid while considering the application under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act.

(2.) The short facts of the case in hand are that Baba Vairabananda Mohavidyalaya, Chandikhole in the district of Jajpur is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 33 of the Orissa Education Act having +2 and +3 wings. Since there are more than 500 girl students in the said College, as per the staffing pattern there being necessity of a Lady attendant, one Smt. Mandakini Aich was appointed. After her resignation, the petitioner was appointed as Lady Attendant on daily wage basis and accordingly she joined on 03.09.1997 and was discharging her duty. While continuing as such, the Principal of the said College vide Annexure-2 dated 31.08.1998 cancelled her appointment which was assailed before this Court by filing OJC No. 14226 of 1998. Pursuant to notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit. The Governing Body in its counter affidavit filed in the writ petition took a specific stand that following due procedure of selection and pursuant to Resolution passed by the Governing Body, opposite party No. 5 was selected and order of appointment was issued to her. It was also stated that the appellant was also an applicant for the said post but she had not appeared in the interview. Therefore, the appellant filed the application before the State Education Tribunal under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act for approval of her appointment and release of grant-in-aid in her favour, but the learned Tribunal rejected the same. Hence this case.

(3.) Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the Governing Body issued an advertisement which was published in the Notice Board inviting applications from the intending candidates for the post of Lady Attendant which had to be submitted on or before 18.03.1999. Admittedly, the appellant submitted her application on 21.03.1999 after the cutoff date i.e. 18.03.1999, but her application was accepted. Since no call letter was issued to her to participate in the process of selection, the appellant could not participate in the said selection process consequentially, respondent No. 5 was selected and necessary appointment order was issued to her on 29.06.1999 pursuant to which she joined on 01.07.1999. It is urged that since no opportunity was given to the appellant to participate in the process of selection, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that whether there is any malafide in not giving intimation to the appellant about the said interview is beyond the purview of the Tribunal to consider is not justified rather since no opportunity was given to the appellant to participate in the process of selection, she could not be able to appear such test. Admittedly when the appellant was discharging her duty on daily wage basis prior to said interview she should have been given preference to participate in the selection process.