AKSHYAYA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the communication of the Deputy Secretary to Government in Higher Education Department, intimating inadmissibility of the second post of lecturer in History of Malkangiri College, Malkangiri on the basis of the workload furnished with effect from 1983 -84 and consequently informing that the petitioner is not eligible to receive grant -in -aid against the said post, a copy whereof is Annexure -B. The further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to opposite party No. 1 to sanction the post held by the petitioner and release of grant -in -aid as per the order of this Court in Annexure -7.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition is that Malkangiri College was established in the year 1980 in the district of Koraput and received Government concurrence for opening of LA. classes with 128 seats in Arts during 1980 -81 in the subjects mentioned therein and also received affiliation from Berhampur University in' the year 1980 -81. The college was admitted to grant -in -aid in the year 1983 -84. During the year 1982 degree courses were opened and provisional affiliation was accorded in the year 1986 vide letter No. 15778 dated 24.11.1986 of the University and the Government concurrence was also received in Government letter No. 45641 dated 17.10.1990. The petitioner asserts that after passing his M.A. in the subject History in the year 1976 and being placed in 2nd class with 55% of marks, he was appointed as a lecturer -in History in the aforesaid Malkangiri College in the year 1982. A copy of the letter of appointment is annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ application. The Governing Body confirmed the services of the petitioner with effect from 3.1.1982. The petitioner became eligible to receive minimum grant -in -aid from 1.6.1983. The then Deputy Director verified the appointment . letter, joining report and resolution pertaining to appointment of the petitioner on 29.11.1986 for the purpose of approval of his post and assessment of grant -in -aid. Opp. Party No. 3, Director, Higher Education submitted the proposal vide letter No. 90 -84 -84 (IV) - 9404 -GH dated 8.4.1991 to opposite party No. 1 requesting the Government to accord their sanction to an expenditure of Rs. 1,34,760/ - as per the detailed financial statement given in Annexure -1.

(3.) ON notice being issued, opp. parties 2 and 3 have filed their separate counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder to such counter affidavit. It is the case of opposite party No. 2 that Malkangiri College is an aided educational institution having higher secondary +2 classes. It is further stated that history is one of the subjects for which concurrence and affiliation has been granted by the appropriate authorities. There is only one sanctioned post of lecturer in history which was admitted to grant -in -aid. It is stated that the college authorities made an application in Form -B (as required under Section 7 -C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 read with the Grant -in -aid Order 1994), a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure -A/2. In the said application, the college authorities tried to justify a second post of lecturer in history from the academic session 1983 -84 by giving the details as under: 1983 - 84HISTORYClass +2 (1st Year) +2 (2nd Year) Old I.A. 2nd YearSection strength - -96 128 128Actual students - -94 124 125No. of Gen. Class - -04 (per week) 04 (per week) 04No. of Tutorial Classes - - 04 (per week) 06 (per week ) 08Total No of Class - - 08 (per week) 10 (per week) 12 It is the stand of opposite party No. 2 that on examination of the matter it revealed that the tutorial classes as indicated in the aforesaid chart could not be 8 for the second year of the old LA. classes which was to be phased out. The roll strength of the class being 125, it is asserted that there could only have maximum 6 tutorial groups consisting of 24 students per group as per the Government letter dated 1.5.1984. A reference has been made to the Government letter dated 1.5.1984, a copy whereof is Annexure -B/2 to show that as per the letter each tutorial group should consist of 24 students and calculated on that basis the classes were assessed at 06 per week, instead of 08 per week of 2nd year I. A. class of the year 1983 -84, it is stated that the college in question justifies total 28 classes in history and not 30 as claimed. It is, therefore, the stand or opp. party No. 2 that in view of the Government letter dated 1.5.1984 (Annexure - B/2), a second post is justified only when a college is required to have minimum 29 classes in a week in a particular subject. Since the Roll strength of the College did not justify more than 28 classes per week in the subject of History, it was considered that the second post in History which the petitioner held was not justified and accordingly, the claim has been rejected rightly and communication made in Annexure -8.