PUSPALATA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the case of Petitioner, though Indravati Mahavidyalaya, Jaipatna has not received any grant -in -aid from Government, it is being financed by Upper Indravati Hydro Electric Project under the approval of the Government in Energy Department and as such it is an aided Educational Institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) THE Governing Body of the College published an advertisement in daily "Sambad" dated 9.6.1993, under Annexure -1 inviting applications from women candidates for a post of Lecturer in Geography in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000 -3500/ -. There was no indication in the advertisement that the post was temporary one nor that the appointment was to be made for 89 days, on ad hoc basis. The Petitioner along with some others applied for the said post and faced interview before the Selection Committee constituted by the Governing Body of the College and she came out successful. The Principal of the College informed the Petitioner that she was selected for the post and further instructed her to join in the College. Accordingly, she joined in the College on 18.9.1993, but however she was allowed to sign the Attendance Register from 22.9.1993 only. While she was continuing as Lecturer in Geography in the said College, she was shocked to receive her appointment order dated 2.9.1993, wherein it was indicated that she had been appointed on ad hoc basis with a consolidated pay of Rs. 15007 - only per month, till the post received approval of the competent authority of Upper Indravati Project. When protested, the Principal assured her that once the post was approved, her scale of pay would be Rs. 2000 -3500/ - per month with retrospective effect from 18.9.1993. Relying on the said assurance, the Petitioner continued to discharge her duties regularly. In the meantime, Government of Orissa in Energy Department vide letter No. 2738 dated 8.2.1993 sanctioned the Petitioner's post and approved her appointment and subsequently confirmed the same vide letter dated 28.7.1994. To her dismay, on 21.12.1993 she received Anr. appointment order dated 21.12.1993 wherein she was asked to join within 15 days as a Lecturer in Geography with a consolidated pay of Rs. 1500/ - per month, on 89 days basis. The post of the Petitioner was sanctioned from time to time for different spells and ultimately it was sanctioned for the period from 1.3.1995 to 28.2.1996. On 5.8.1998, vide office order No. 95/3166, the Petitioner was asked to sign in a proforma letter if at all she wanted to continue in the college. However, instead of signing on the said letter, on 10.5.1995, she submitted a letter written in her own language to the Principal, expressing her willingness to continue in the College. Since the Principal refused to receive the said letter, she sent it by Registered Post on 10.5.1995, which he again refused to accept. Being vindictive, the Principal stopped payment of the arrear dues of the Petitioner, though the said amount had already been drawn. He wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer with a copy to the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College by Memo No. 171 (II) dated 25.7.1995 (Annexure -10) stating therein that the statement submitted by his office dated 30.3.1995 claiming a sum of Rs. 42000/ - towards arrear dues of the Petitioner for the period 1.3.1993 to 31.3.1994 was a clerical error and as such, the said amount was required to be refunded. This shows the real picture of the vindictive .attitude of the Principal and the Governing Body of the College towards the Petitioner. To add to her misery, the Petitioner was not allowed to sign in the Staff Attendance Register since 3.7.1995 and ultimately, on 5.8.1995 she was restrained from entering into the College by the Principal, on the ground that Anr. Lecturer in Geography (opp. party No. 6) had already been appointed in her place since 31.7.1995. The claim of the Petitioner for her salary went unheeded. Finding no other alternative, she filed an Appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (opp. party No. 3) challenging the order of termination and -non -payment of her salary which was dismissed on 8.8.1996 under Annexure -11, on the ground that she was appointed for a particular period and that she did not apply in proforma letter for further extension of the period of her service. No specific order was passed on the claim of salary. So the Petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the appointment order of opp. party No. 6 and the appellate order, Annexure -11 and to direct the opp. parties 1 to 5 to pay her salary from 18.9.1993 and to allow her to discharge her duties as Lecturer in Geography in Indravati Mahavidyalaya, Jaipatna.

(3.) IN their counter affidavit, opp. party Nos. 4 and 5 stated that the Governing Body of the College in question invited applications from suitable candidates to fill up various posts including the post of Lecturer in Geography which was reserved for women candidates publishing it in the Orissa daily the "Sambad", on 9.6.1993 under Annexure -C/4. A corrigendum was issued on 9.7.1993 lifting the restriction for other candidates in the post of Lecturer in Geography and in the said notice it was indicated that the aforesaid post would be filled up on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days carrying a consolidated pay of Rs. 1500/ - for first two years, under Annexure -D/4. Petitioner faced the interview and was selected for the post of Lecturer in Geography. The Governing Body of the College passed a resolution empowering the Secretary to issue appointment order in favour of the Petitioner on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days, on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1500/ - per month. Pursuant to the said decision, the Secretary vide office order dated 2.9.1993, issued the order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner including the terms and conditions of her service under Annexure -E/4. Accordingly, Petitioner joined the post on 22.9.1993 and continued in service on 89 days basis with some break on the cessation of each spell till 3.10.1994, when her service was terminated under Annexure -L/4. However, the Petitioner was again given appointment on ad hoc basis for the period from 27.10.1994 to 15.5.1995 vide order dated 27.10.1994 of the Secretary of the Governing Body under Annexure -M/4. Then the Secretary asked the Petitioner to make a fresh application in a proforma for her further continuance in service vide letter dated 5.4.1995. But she did not make any fresh application in such proforma as indicated in the letter dated 8.5.1995, as a result of which, her case could not be considered. So, in order to fill up the post of Lecturer in Geography, the Governing Body formed a subcommittee on 18.7.1995 to conduct the interview. Accordingly, the sub -committee conducted the interview, wherein opp. party No. 6 was selected for the post of Lecturer in Geography and was given appointment on ad hoc basis. On 22.7.1995, he joined in the College and continued till 24.7.1995 on 89 days basis. It is the specific plea of opp. party Nos. 4 and 5 that the Petitioner received her salary as per the terms and conditions given in her appointment letter till 30.4.1995, but she did not accept her salary from 1.5.1995 to 15.5.1995.