RABINARAYAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application assailing the order dated, 15.7.2004 passed by the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur in Appeal No. 11 of 2003 holding that the appointment of the petitioner is prima facie void as the said appointment was against a non-created, non-approved additional post by the Managing Committee and seeking quashing of the same and also for grant of consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law by allowing him to resume his duty to function as Assistant Teacher in place of opposite party Nos. 6 and 7.

(2.) The short fact of the case in hand is that Swami Ramakrishna Memorial High School, Chhend Colony, Rourkela was established in the year 1988 after getting due permission from the competent authority. The students of the said high school have been appearing at the H.S.C. Examination as regular candidates since 1994. The staffing pattern of the school is regulated by the Government guidelines according to which besides the headmaster, there should be two trained graduate teachers in Arts, two science graduate posts, one from PCM and another for CBZ two other teachers are continuing against the said posts. The petitioner who was a trained graduate was appointed by the Managing Committee to discharge his duty of Asst. Teacher and he joined in the said school on 20.08.1996. It is stated by the petitioner that by the time he was appointed/ opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 though was continuing against the trained graduate post, they had no requisite training qualification. Therefore, they could not have been allowed to continue against the said posts. But subsequently, opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 obtained B.Ed. qualification under correspondence course from Kamraj University, Madurai in the year 1998-99. Since the petitioner's appointment had not been approved, he was not allowed to continue in service, the same amounted to termination of service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur under Section 10 (A) of the Orissa Eduction Act. After due adjudication, the Director has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 15.7.2004. Hence, this application.

(3.) Mr. Bansidhar Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner having requisite qualification and having been appointed as Asst. Teacher pursuant to which he joined the post, he could not have been prevented to discharge his duty against the said post. It is stated that opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 both had no requisite training qualification by the time they were appointed against the trained graduate post. Therefore, the petitioner being the only qualified person, he should have been allowed to discharge his duty against the post he has been appointed. Subsequently, he has been prevented to discharge the duty, which amounts-to termination as a result of which he preferred an appeal before the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur under Section 10 (A) of the Orissa Education Act who ultimately held that the petitioner's appointment having been made against a non-created, non-approved additional post, such appointment is prima facie void. This finding of the appellate authority, it is urged, is the outcome of non-application of mind, therefore he seeks for interference of this Court. In order to substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, 2008 AIR(SC) 1817