JAGANNATH SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders of the State Government communicated in the letter dated 7 -3 -1991 of the Special Officer -cum - . Deputy Secretary to Government to the Director, Secondary Education . Orissa (Annexure -8) and in the letter dated 9 -6 -1993 of the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Department of Schools and Mass. Education to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa (Annexure -10) and the order of the Deputy Director (NGS) Orissa dated 9 -11 -1993 (Ahnexure -1 1) are sought to be quashed in this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE controversy raised in this case relates to inter se seniority between the petitioner, Jagannath Sahoo and opp. party No. 5, Gayadhar Majhi as trained graduate teacher and promotion to the post of Headmaster of the 0.T.M. High School at Choudwar, an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3 (b) of the Orissa Education Act Both of them were Assistant Teachers of the said school. In the order as per Annexure -8, the State Government decided that opp. party No. 5 being senior to the petitioner should remain in charge as Headmaster of the School until further orders. In the order as per Annexure -10, the Government decided that opp. party No. 5 is eligible to draw Headmaster's scale of pay with effect from 1 -8 -1985 and in the order of the Deputy Director (NGS), Orissa as per Annexure -11, opp. party No. 5 was provisionally promoted to the post of Headmaster with effect from 1 -8 -1985 under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of the Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Recruitment Rules').

(3.) REGARDING the inter se seniority between petitioner and opp. party No. 5, the uncontroverted factual position shows that while the petitioner was continuing in a trained graduate post drawing trained graduate scale of pay right from the date of his appointment on 20 -8 -66 in the school, the opp. party No.5 was not holding a trained graduate post between 1 -3 -1969 to 27 -1 -75 during which period he was holding a lower post of trained intermediate teacher and was drawing salary as admissible to such a post. Further, the Inspector and Director on consideration of the service particulars of the two teachers had held the petitioner to be senior to opp. party No. 5. Subsequently the decision was reversed on the sole ground that during the break period, 1 -3 -69 to 27 -1 -75, the Managing Committee of the school was reimbursing opp. party No. 5 the differential pay between the trained intermediate and trained graduate scales. But it is not the case of the opp. party nor have the authorities also held that opp. party No. 5 was discharging duties as a trained graduate teacher during the said period. In the circumstances, there was no rational basis and acceptable ground for holding the opp. party No.5 to be senior to the petitioner as a trained graduate teacher. The previous decision of the Inspector and the Director in the matter was just and proper. However, this point has lost its importance since the petitioner has in the meantime retired from service.