STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BAIRAGI CHARAN LENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the 'condensed in -service training' mentioned in the proviso to Sub -rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 equivalent to 'correspondence -cum -contact course' referred to in Regulation 6 (b) of Chapter XD of the Board's Regulations ? This is the precise question that falls for consideration in this review application filed by the State of Orissa and its officials against the judgment dated 27 -4 -1992 of this Court in OJC No. 900 of 1992 in which it was held that the opp. party Bairagi Charan Lenka shall be treated to have acquired the training envisaged under the aforesaid sub -rule(2) of Rule 16 in view of his training in correspondence -cum -contact course.

(2.) A resume of facts leading to the filing of this review application is necessary to be noted The opp. party filed the aforesaid OJC No. 900 of 1992 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that he is entitled to get trained matric scale of pay with effect from 1 -1 -1982. His case was that he was a matriculate and on being selected by the management of Nigamananda M.E. School joined as an Assistant Teacher in the said school in the year 1983. He had been drawing untrained matric scale of pay. In the year 1981, after completion of 17 years of service, he was selected for the 'correspondence -cum -contact course'. He joined the course on 17 -12 -1981 and on completion of the course was relieved on 31 -12 -1981. Thereafter, he through the Ail Orissa Lower Secondary Teachers Association demanded trained scale of pay but the Government did not take any action. A teacher called Gourahari Jena filed writ application (OJC No. 8 of 1984) seeking direction for sanction of trained scale of pay in his favour. This Court by judgment dated 4 -5 -1987 disposed of the said writ application, The Court accepted the stand of the State Government that the wrint petitioner had not undergone the condensed in -service training mentioned in the proviso to Sub -rule (2) of Rule 16 of the Orissa education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974 Rules') It further observed that since an obligation had been undertaken by the governmental authorities for providing opportunity to the teachers having ten years of experience for receiving the condensed in -service training to be eligible to be confirmed and entitled to draw the trained salary, by not providing any opportunity to such teachers, amounted to deprivation of the benefits which the 1974 Rules intended to confer upon them. The Court further observed that if the training which the writ petitioner had already undertaken was different, then another training which is meant by the rule -making authority as per the proviso to Sub -rule (2) of Rule 16 should be imparted to all such teachers without unreasonable delay so that they might not suffer any loss. Time till December, 1987 was granted by the Court for imparting such training to the teachers. It was the allegation of the opp. party in the writ application (out of which the present review arises) that despite the aforesaid direction of the Court in the earlier case OJC No. 8 of 1984 he was not imparted with any such training and the concerned authorities having failed to do so, he cannot be denied the trained scale of pay in view of the fact that he himself completed the correspondence -cum -contact course. Despite service of notice, the petitioners who were opp. parties in the case did not file counter -affidavit. In the circumstances, the Court by judgment dated 27 -4 -1992 disposed of the writ application declaring as follows : 'From the conduct of the parties, it is apparent that the opp. parties are not in a position to substantiate their earlier stand that there is another condensed training course which is available for the petitioner to undergo. Even if such training is available, the opp. parties have not taken any steps to get the petitioner trained in it. In that view of the matter, we direct that the petitioner be treated in view of his training in the contact -cum -correspondence course to have already acquired the training as required under Rule 16 (2) and be paid the trained scale with effect from 1 -1 -1982 and be continued to be paid in such scale of pay...' Being aggieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners preferred SLP (C) No. 11421 of 1994 and 12461 of 1994 before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships by order dated 30 -8 -1994 disposed of the petitions by observing as follows : 'In these appeals, two questions have been raised, to wit, the adequacy of the training and the entitlement to payment of the arrears from 1982. With regard to the first question, we do not find much substance, since the Secretary, who in one of the meetings had discussions with the teachers association and their office bearers and had suggested the taking by them a condensed course in two years in their respective vacations at a period of 16 days each. The condensed course suggested and the correspondence course which the teachers claimed to have taken by correspondence, if are the same, there cannot be much substance in the first contention. - - - - But with regard to the second contention, we do not propose to express any opinion on merits, since in these cases the High Court is required to look into the matter and consider the respective contentions of the State as well as the teachers, i.e. when the particular teacher passed the course and from what date he, would be entitled to regular salary. Therefore, it is open to the Government to make necessary applications for review of the judgments and the limitation that has run out during the interrugnum be not taken into account in view of the facts and circumstances in these cases. Review petitions should be filed within sixty days from the date of the receipt of this order.'' Pursuant to the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court, this application for review has been filed at the instance of the State and its officials.

(3.) WE may extract the relevant part of Regulation 6. The following categories of candidates are eligible to appear for the above examination privately. '(a).................................... (b) Teachers........................'or teachers of Primary or Secondary Schools of the State who have completed the Correspondence -cum -Contact Course conducted by the Institutions duly recognised by the Board' (c)............................. (d)..............................' From the aforesaid Regulations, it is clear that two types of candidates eligible to appear at the Teachers' Certificate Examination. One category is 'Regular candidates' who prosecute regular course of study for certain period in Secondary Training Schools and satisfy other conditions and the other category is called 'Private candidates' who must satisfy the requirements mentioned in Regulation 6 (a), (b), (c) and (d), In the case at hand, we are concerned with Clause (b) of Regulastion 6 which states, inter alia, that teachers of Primary or Secondary Schools of the State who have completed the Correspohdence -cum -Contact Course conducted by the Institutions duly recognised by the Board of Secondary Education are eligible to appear for Teachers Certficate Examination privately. Sub -rule (2) of Rule 16 of the 1974 Rules states, inter alia, that no teacher who has not undergone the training prescribed for the post shall hold the post substantively but an untrained teacher having not less than ten years of service shall undergo condensed in -service training provided by the Government and after successful completion of such training shall be eligible for confirmation and shall be entitled to draw salary of trained teacher. There is no dispute at the Bar that in order to be substantively appointed as a teacher and to be entitled to the trained scale of pay, it is necesssary for the opp. party to pass the Teachers' Certificate Examination as provided under the Regulation referred to above. Admittedly, the opp, party has not passed the Teachers' Certificate Examination. Shri Ashok Mohanty, learned counsel for the opp. party submitted that in order to meat such situation, provision has been made in the first proviso to Sub -rule (2) of Rule 16 that an untrained teacher with ten or more years of service shall undergo condensed in -service training provided by the Government and after successful completion of such training, he will be eligible to draw salary of a trained teacher. Since the State Government has not provided any condensed in -service training to undergo and in view of the fact that the opposite party has undergone the Correspondence -cum -Contact Course, he is entitled to be substantively appointed and draw trained scale of pay.