MANAS KUMAR CHAND Vs. SECRETARY EDUCATION AND YOUTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the time the grief -stricken, job -hungry, anxious for sustenance and believers in the majesty of law, felt that their real and unfortunate odyssey was over, the authorities and benefit -conferring agencies have made them realise the journey to the unseen and unexplored has just begun. To counter such an ingenious method by the opposite parties the petitioners have moved this Court for initiation of contempt because that is the last resource of hope to unveil and uncurtain the factual matrix, and discern in proper perspective whether the commands of this Court are carried out as directed, or there are skilful efforts and adroit attempts to nullify the order of this Court under some guise or other.

(2.) THE case in hand has a sad history. Sripati B. Ed. Training College, Nalagaja was established in January, 1981 in the district of Mayurbhanj to impart B. Ed. training. The institution was continuously being given concurrence till the year 1986 -87, but was refused beyond the aforesaid year on the basis of a report of the committee set up to examine the eligibility of the college for grant of concurrence. The said order of refusal was challenged before this Court in OJC No. 2958/87 and by judgment dated 20 -4 -89 the said refusal was quashed. White setting aside the order of refusal this Court held thus : 'In view of the policy decision of the Government as reflected under Annexure -10 and the petitioner's college being one which had obtained the necessary concurrence at the point of time when the policy decision had been taken and has been recognised also in the said policy decision has been forwarded to the petitioner's college, the subsequent refusal of concurrence of the Government so far as the petitioner's college is concerned on the basis of Annexure -A, must be held to be arbitrary and not in accordance with law.' The Court declared that the report of the expert committee as per Annexure -A was not sustainable having been based on extraneous consideration and directed the State Government in the following terms : 'We would now call upon the State Government to consider the question of grant of concurrence for the ensuing academic session 1989 -90 bearing in mind the observations made by us in this judgment and not being influenced in any manner by the report of the expert committee which has been annexed as Annexure -A to the counter affidavit of the Government, and which has been quashed by us having been held to be based on extraneous considerations, whereafter the University also will consider the question of grant of affiliation in accordance with Statutes 182 and 182 -C.' We may also profitably refer to the anxious observations of this Court over the conduct of the State Government. It is as under: 'We cannot but observe that the State Government after enunciating an educational policy for the State must adhere to the same while considering the question of grant of concurrence to a particular institution and should not dispose of the question of concurrence in any arbitrary or whimsical manner or in a manner contrary to the said educational policy evolved by the State, basing upon some extraneous considerations. The University also should bestow full attention before considering the question of grant of affiliation. Both the authorities should also bear in mind that a particular institution has been running for quite some years, has invested some amount, made some constructions, appointed teachers and all this should not be thrown into the waste paper basket overnight.'

(3.) THE question of grant of concurrence was dealt with by the State Government and it expressed the view that the petitioner's college could not be considered eligible for concurrence during 1988 -89. The aforesaid decision was challenged by the petitioners again in three different writ petitions, namely, OJC Nos 4559, 4560 and 4661 of 1994. In the meantime, one Kanhu Charan Nayak, a similarly situated employee of the institution preferred OJC No. 6748 of 1994 with identical relief. In that case by judgment dated 26 -7 -95 this Court directed the State Government to consider his case for rehabilitation under the scheme. It is appropriate to quote the relevant portion from the said judgment: '......The only ground in which the case is rejected is that no application has been filed by the management for concurrence for the year in question. The petitioner however, disputes the fact that no application was filed. We are not inclined to go into the disputed question. However, it is clear to us that the petitioner and other staff of Sripati B. Ed. College have been denied the facility of rehabilitation as per the policy decision of the State Government on the technical ground that their institution did not have the Govt. concurrence for the year 1988 -89. It is not disputed before us that prior to the year 1988 -89 the institution had been granted Govt. concurrence. The rehabilitation scheme was framed by the Govt. to render assistance to the staff of defunct private institutions who had lost service due to introduction of Section 7 -E of the Act. The intent, purpose and spirit of the rehabilitation scheme to have been defeated so far as this institution is concerned on purely technical ground. On consideration of the entire matter, particularly, the time that has elapsed we direct the opposite parties to consider the petitioner's case for rehabilitation assistance under the scheme as extended to the staff of other similar institutions and render such assistance to him as permissible under the scheme within a period of 3 months of receipt of the writ.'