DIPTI RANJAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioner, namely, Surendranath Mishra, while working as Assistant Teacher in Somanath Vidyapitha, Jahanpur, died prematurely on 31.10.1993. On obtaining death and legal heir certificates, as well as consent/no objection from other family members, the petitioner applied in the AFR prescribed form for compassionate appointment under the provisions of Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1990'). As per the provisions contained in Rule-11 of the Rules, 1990, which was amended by the G.A. Department, Government of Orissa vide resolution dated 14.10.1998 (published in the Orissa Gazette on 15.10.1998), wherein it has been clearly provided that the provisions laid down in Rules, 1990 as amended from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the families of the employees of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Aided Educational Institutions under the Education Department w.e.f. 24.09.1990, the petitioner's application was forwarded to the Collector for distress certificate. On receipt of distress certificate from the Collector, the case of the petitioner was processed, but due to ban imposed by the Finance Department in its letter dated 02.02.2000, the benefit of compassionate appointment could not be extended to the family of the deceased employee.

(2.) However, the restriction imposed by the Finance Department was modified and the State Government in the School and Mass Education Department issued a circular on 21.06.2011 intimating that fact. Subsequent thereto, the State Government issued another circular on 11.04.2013 that prior to issuance of appointment order in respect of such type of applicants, the appointing authorities were required to obtain necessary approval of the concerned District Education Officers. Prior to issuance of circular dated 11.04.2013, the Director had forwarded the case of the petitioner, along with similarly situated applicants, for approval, as recommended by the District Education Officer, and the same was approved by the State Government vide order dated 04.02013, wherein the name of the petitioner was found place at sl.no.8. But, the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, while forwarding the list approved by the State Government vide letter dated 20.05.2013, indicated that the appointment of the candidates would be made strictly as per their educational qualification, in the school, from where the deceased employee died, and in case vacancy did not exist in the school, as per the qualification, then he would have to wait till a suitable vacancy arose in the said school. Because of such stipulation in the letter dated 20.05.2013 of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, the District Education Officer refused to appoint the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the stipulation made in the letter dated 20.05.2013 by the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa to the effect that the appointment would be made strictly as per the educational qualification, in the school, from where the deceased employee died, and in case vacancy did not exist in that school, as per the qualification, then he would have to wait till a suitable vacancy arose in the said school; run contrary to the provisions contained in Rule- 8(1)(d) of Rules, 1990. It is contended that when the vacancies are available under the jurisdiction of District Education Officer, the petitioner can be appointed either against Class-III and Class-IV post befitting his qualification, as the very objective of the said Rules, 1990 is to alleviate the hardship of the family of the deceased employee. It is further contended that even though the District Education Officer vide its letter dated 11.09.2013 sought for clarification from the Director, Secondary Education regarding appointment of the petitioner, no action has yet been taken by the authorities and, thereby, since the authorities are acting arbitrarily and unreasonably, interference of this Court is warranted.