SURENDRA MOHAN OTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant who is a retired Headmaster, Primary School, has challenged the order dated 30.12.2006, rejecting his representation against the order of reversion dated 20.1.2003 vide Annexure-3 with a prayer to direct the concerned authorities to calculate his pension and other post retiral dues in the scale of pay of Head Pandit.

(2.) Case of the applicant, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Primary School on 22.11.1968 in the undivided district of Bolangir which was subsequently renamed as Subarnapur district, after creation of new district. As to his qualification, the applicant is Matric with C.T. training. The applicant was promoted to the post of Head Master vide order No. 10015 dated 24.9.1988 of the D.I. of Schools, Sonepur and continued as such till his retirement on 31.3.2007. It is averred that prior to 1983 though teachers with Matric C.T. and Non Matric C.T. qualifications were eligible to be appointed as Primary School Teachers, however, two separate gradation lists were maintained one for Matric C.T. and other for Non Matric E.T. As the teachers with Matric C.T. qualifications were only considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster in the U.P. School, the Non Matric E.T., teachers approached the Hon'ble Court to extend them similar benefit as Matric C.T. teachers. Ultimately, the matter was set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7155/1993 with a direction to treat both class of teachers equally and there should be one common gradation list. Their promotion should be considered on the basis of seniority as per the date of appointment. Hon'ble Apex Court further directed that the Matric C.T. teachers, who have already been promoted as Headmaster/Head Pandits should be allowed to continue in the post of Headmaster in view of the fact that during last several years more vacancies must have occurred. In violation of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant and many other teachers have been reverted vide order dated 20.1.2003 from the post of Head Pandits to the post of Assistant teachers. However, the said order of reversion was never implemented and the applicant was allowed to continue in the post of Head Pandit till his retirement.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 filed counter admitting the factual aspect of the case that the applicant was appointed as Asst. Teacher on 22.11.1968, promoted to the post of Head Pandit on 19.11.1988 and retired on superannuation from Government service on 31.1.2007. It is further averred that the applicant, was reverted to the post of Asst. Teacher on 20.1.2003 and again promoted to the post of Head Pandit on 16.12.2001. It is further averred that pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as distinction between Matric and Non Matric teachers of Primary School was removed, as per the Notification dated 25.6.1988, the district wise seniority list was prepared in respect of Matric and Non Matric Primary School teachers on the basis of their training seniority and suitability. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Matric teachers already promoted to the post of Head Pandit should be allowed to continue without reversion, but as the promotion of the applicant was after 25.6.1988, he was reverted vide order dated 20.1.2003 and was not allowed to continue as Headmaster, till his retirement, as claimed by him. Further as per the instruction of the Director of Elementary Education, a combined gradation list of Matric C.T. and Non Matric C.T. teachers were prepared as on 25.6.1988, which was duly approved by the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir vide letter No. 9510 dated 10.8.1998. The Matric C.T. teachers, who were promoted to the post of Head Pandit with effect from September, 1988, out of the gradation list of 2.6.1988 and continuing as such were included in the gradation list of Asst, teachers. The order of promotion was issued in respect of 65 teachers, out of said gradation list against the vacant posts of Headmasters prior to 12.8.1997, without reverting the Matric C.T. Headmasters. On the other hand, the Matric C.T. teachers promoted earlier as Headmaster and continuing as such have not been issued with continuance order following the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No order of reversion have been passed on the day 65 senior teachers were promoted, from which it is clear that there was no difficulty to absorb Matric C.T. Head Pandits against the post of Headmasters in which they were continuing since 1998. While 65 senior teachers were promoted and 68 Matric C.T. Head Pandits were continuing as such, they (68 Matric C.T. teachers) approached the Hon'ble High Court in O.J.C. No. 3285/98, 3286/98, and 3576/95) apprehending reversion as their names were enlisted in the gradation list of Asst, teachers and the Hon'ble Court passed interim order not to revert them. In spite of such order of the Hon'ble Court, the D.I. of Schools, promoted 68 E.T. teachers vide order No. 793 dated 11.3.1999 and 812 dated 15.3.1999 by reverting Head Pandits, in view of such order one Abhimanyu Das and other E.T. teachers who were promoted to the post of Head Pandits on 11.3.1999 against the vacancies occurred due to reversion of Matric C.T. Head Pandits filed OJC No. 11102/2001 and in O.A.T. P.P. No. 154 (c)/2001, where the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 7.12.2001 directed to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 7155/1993. Thereafter the D.I. of Schools, vide his letter No. 608 dated 19.2.2002 sought clarification from the Government and accordingly instruction was issued to implement the order of the Hon'ble Court, specifically stating that 25.6.1988 was the effective date to give effect to the promotion of Asst, teachers in each district and the Matric Head Pandit/Headmasters whose names do not find place in the gradation list, shall not continue as such and are to be reverted. Accordingly the applicant was reverted to the post of Asst, teacher. Thus, it is averred that there has been no infraction or violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the grievance of the applicant merits no consideration and accordingly liable to be rejected.