JATADHARI SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Peon in Jagannath Bidyaniketan, Kotang, in the district of Puri filed this petition challenging the order of Inspector of Schools - opposite party No. 3 rejecting his representation for approval of appointment of 4th peon of the School.

(2.) THE short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was appointed as 4th peon on 01.10.1986, i.e., prior to the revised yardstick came into force w.e.f. 27.03.1992. When the petitioner's case was recommended for approval as a 4th peon, his case was rejected on the ground that as per the revised yardstick dated 27.03.1992 the roll strength of the School was less than 500 and therefore, his appointment is beyond the yardstick. As per the yardstick dated 08.07.1981, the post of peon is justified where the roll strength of the School is 100 or exceeds 100 and the institution in question is aided, has become eligible to receive grant -in -aid w.e.f. 01.07.1984. As per the yardstick dated 19.03.1992 enforceable from 01.01.1992, three Class -IV employees are admissible when the roll strength is less than 500 and where the roll strength exceeds 500, one post of Daftary is admissible. Therefore, 4th post of peon has not been created by the Government for the School. Since the petitioner has been appointed as Class -IV employee by Managing Committee prior to 01.02.1992, the question of according approval to the post of 4th peon does not arise. Hence this petition.

(3.) MR . A.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department states that the petitioner has never been appointed against the post of 4th peon. From the proceeding book which has been submitted by the Headmaster, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Bearer vide Managing Committee Resolution No. 20 dated 30.09.1986 and subsequently joined in the School on 01.10.1986. The Headmaster submitted the original Employment Exchange Card, Managing Committee Resolution Book, appointment order and joining report of the petitioner. As per the said documents, the petitioner has been appointed as a Laboratory Bearer on 30.09.1986 and subsequently, joined on 01.10.1986. Pursuant to the order dated 22.10.1998, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered. As per the yardstick dated 08.07.1981, three class -IV employees are admissible for non -government Secondary Schools and where the roll strength exceeds 100, one post of Duftary is admissible. But the petitioner having been appointed as a Laboratory Bearer in contravention of the Government letter dated 08.07.1981, his service is not entitled be approved by the competent authority. As per the yardstick dated 27.03.1992 which has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.1992, three numbers of Class -IV employees were admissible to the School and where roll strength is 500 or more, one post of Duftary is admissible. No materials have been produced before the authority granting promotion to the senior most person to the post of Duftary so that in the consequential vacancy the petitioner could be adjusted nor the appointment of the petitioner indicates that he was appointed against the post of 4th peon. In absence of any materials available on record, the reasons assigned by the authority are wholly and fully justified and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same.