BASANTA KUMAR SWAIN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . This Writ Petition is as against Judgment of the State Education Tribunal, Orissa in Appeal No, 19 of 2000. Petitioner was the Appellant and the Governing Body of Sri Satya Sai Womens College, Bhubaneswar with its officials and the Director of Higher Education, Orissa were the Respondents in that appeal. Petitioner's service was terminated on 20.10.2000. That order of termination was challenged before the State Education Tribunal under Section 10 -A of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, 'the Act'). The dispute before the Tribunal centered round, if the Petitioner was the junior -most surplus staff and whether his termination is regulated by the provisions in Section 10 -A(1)(a) of the Act.

(2.) AT the outset, Learned Counsel for the Governing Body raises the issue on maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the impugned order is appealable under Section 24 -C of the Act. According to Mr. Pattnaik, Learned Counsel for the Governing Body, provision in Section 24 -B(2) of the Act is sufficient enough to interpret that not only orders passed under Section 24 -B (1) but also any order passed by the State Education Tribunal is appealable under Section 24 -C of the Act. With due regard to that submission, we are unable to agree with such an interpretation. The provision in the Act is explicitly clear, in as much as, when it relates to termination of service, the provision in Section 10 -A regulates the procedure for approval of the authority of the Education Department and Appeal to the State Education Tribunal against approval or rejection of the order of termination. No further forum has been provided in the Act for appeal against the Judgment passed by the State Education Tribunal on appeal. Therefore, application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against order passed by Tribunal under Section 10 -A of the Act. On the other hand, Section 24 -B of the Act was introduced in the statute book in the year 1998 to regulate the matter relating to eligibility, entitlement, payment or non -payment of grant -in -aid and in that respect, Sections 24 -B and 24 -C were inserted into the statute book. The said two provisions are wholesome to regulate the matter relating to grant -in -aid as stated above and the forum of appeal. Apart from that, 'any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal' provided in Sub -section (2) of Section 24 -8 only relates to the matters mentioned in Sub -section (1). In other words, no forum for second appeal has been provided against Judgments passed in appeal under Section 10 -A of the Act.

(3.) PETITIONER 's contention that the appointment letter dated 19.01.1991, Annexure -1 reveals that service of the Petitioner was approved w.e.f. 05.07.1990. He further states that as per the Resolution of the Governing Body dated 03.04.1994, Annexure -2, Petitioner's service was ratified w.e.f. 05.07.1990 and, therefore, contention of the Management terming his service as junior -most surplus clerical staff is not correct. In that context, the Governing Body has relied on the Resolution dated 09.03.1998 constituting a Committee to regularize the services of the Petitioner and the report of the Committee dated 02.05.1998, Annexure -4 and thereafter the Resolution of the Governing Body dated 04.05.1998, Annexure -5 in support of the contention that service of the Petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 10.11.1993 and not w.e.f. 05.07.1990 and under such circumstance, he was the junior most surplus clerical staff.