SRI BASANTA KUMAR PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal under section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter called as 'the Education Act') calls in question the order passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No.255 of 2010. The appellant by filing the application under section 24-B of the Education Act before the State Education Tribunal has sought for a direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2 for approval of his service under the provision of Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Lecturer Validation)Act, 1998 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the Validation Act, 1998') as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in Economics of Charampa College, Charampa and for consequential release of Grant-In-Aid w.e.f. 17.10.1998 in modification of the earlier approval order dated 13.04.2010 erroneously making him entitled to receive the Block Grant which, according to him, is illegal and arbitrary. The college in question was established in the year 1979 with +2 Arts course at the beginning. From the academic session 1986-87, the college received necessary concurrence and affiliation for running +3 degree wing. The college received Grant-In-Aid w.e.f. 01.06.1985.

(2.) In course of time on account of increase in roll strength in the Department of Economics, the Governing Body having taken a decision to appoint a third lecturer in Economics, the appellant finally came to be appointed and he joined on 20.09.1991. The appointment was also approved by the Governing Body in its resolution dated 01.11.1991 and was confirmed by resolution dated 08.08.1992 as it reveals from Annexures-1 to 4. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time of his appointment, the justification for the additional post of lecturer in Economics was found out as per the Government Resolution/Circular dated 08.08.1983 by taking into account the work load of 25 classes per lecturer in a week with its increase providing necessary justification for another post in the college. When the appellant was appointed as lecturer in Economics for the 3rd post, the work load of the college was very much justifying the said appointment. The appellant accordingly continued to discharge his duty as such. Thus, the appellant being appointed in the college after it came within the Grant-In-Aid fold and became an aided college of the Governing Body through its own selection process, the Governing Body was not competent to do so. So, initially the claim of the appellant to receive the benefit of G.I.A. Order 1994 was not considered. However, the State Government later on came out with the Validation Act, 1988 w.e.f. 17.10.1998 whereby all those lecturers appointed in the aided colleges in between the period 01.01.1985 to 31.12.1992 are declared to have been validly appointed and as such their services standing for regularization, provided they are receiving the salary from the college fund and continuing as such against the admissible or approved post. Accordingly, with the provision in the said Validation Act, 1998, there remained further provisions in the said Act that such appointees would be entitled to get the Grant-In-Aid with effect from the commencement of the Validation Act, 1998, i.e., 17.10.1998. All the colleges being asked to submit their proposals in the prescribed form, the Principal of the college in question pursuant to the same sent the proposal with all the relevant records as per Annexure-6. However, it is stated that for no such cogent and valid reason, the case of the appellant was not considered. It later on came to his knowledge that the authorities finding the 3rd post of lecturer in Economics to be not justified as per the work load statement prior to 31.12.1992, the appellant's claim had been refused. The case of the appellant is that the computation of work load has been made erroneously and in case it being proper made as per the Grant-In-Aid Order, 1994, the 3rd post of lecturer of the college stands justified from the academic session 1992-93, i.e., on and from 01.06.1992. So, it is his case that his services ought to have been validated under the Validation Act, 1998, he being appointed on 20.09.1991 in the post having the justification since 01.06.1992 and as his case satisfies other conditions laid down therein. It is also stated that although so many other persons similarly situated with the appellant have been extended with the said benefits yet he has been deprived and discriminated on unjustified ground.

(3.) The matter being then continuously raised and placed before the Director and the State Government by filing successive representations, finally the Director referring to Government letter dated 03.04.2010 approved the appointment of the appellant with some other lecturers holding them to be entitled to Block Grant w.e.f. 01.02.2009 as per Annexure-8. This is challenged as wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. In this connection, the case of one Hara Priya Behera, lecturer in Political Science in Indira Gandhi Women's College, Cuttack has been cited under Annexure-9 stating that being similarly situated in all respect with the appellant; she had so received the benefits of which the appellant has been deprived of. It is the further case of the appellant that his case being squarely covered under the Validation Act, 1998 and payment of salary being guided under section 3(2) of the said Act, the Director's order merely entitling him with the Block Grant as per the Grant in Aid order, 2009 is untenable.