LAWS(ORI)-2025-8-1

SUBASH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

Decided On August 05, 2025
SUBASH CHANDRA PANDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant inter alia challenging judgment dt.4/2/2012 so passed by the learned State Education Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in G.I Case No.137 of 2010 under Annexure-4. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the present appellant seeking approval of his services as against the post of Peon by quashing the approval of the services of the private Respondent No.4 in G.I.A Case No.137 of 2010.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that basing on the advertisement issued by Khetramohan Science College, Narendrapur-Respondent No.3, on 10/9/1991 under Annexure-1, for appointment to various non-teaching posts, Appellant as well as Respondent No.4 made their applications as against the post of Peon. Pursuant to such advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Appellant was called to attend the interview on 29/9/1991 vide letter dt.24/9/1991 under Annexure-2. Appellant having been found eligible and on being selected was appointed as against the post of Peon vide order of appointment issued by Respondent No.3 on 4/10/1991 under Annexure-3. Pursuant to such order of appointment issued on 4/10/1991, Appellant joined as a Peon on 5/10/1991.

(3.) Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 on the other hand contended that while approaching this Court, challenging the order of approval approving the services of Respondent No.4 as against 3rd post of Peon of the College in OJC No.8718 of 1997, subsequently re-numbered as GIA Case No.137 of 2010 before the Tribunal, it was never the stand of the Appellant that Respondent No.4 being a minor, his very appointment is illegal. It is contended that since no such stand was ever taken by the appellant before the Tribunal, the Tribunal had no occasion to know about the age of Respondent No.4. while he was appointed vide order dt.27/12/1988. It is contended that since no such stand was ever taken by the Appellant in the GIA Case, such a stand cannot be taken in the present appeal.