SUSANTA KUMAR PATNAIK v. STATE OF ORISSA — 1998 DIGILAW 296 (ORI)

P. C. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a lecturer in Logic and Philosphy in Janata College, Kuhuri, has filed this writ petition for quashing the order under Annexure-13 whereby the Government turned down the proposal for ante-dating the concurrence for opening Logic in +2 Arts stream from the academic session 1989-90 instead of 1990-91. Accordingly, the prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the Government to accord concurrence to the subject Logic from the academic session 1989-90 instead of 1990-91 and to allow all consequential benefits to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the college in question was established in the year 1986 and got concurrence during the academic session 1989-90 and thereafter, it was notified to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 1-6-94 and as such, is an aided educational institution. According to the petitioner, the subject Logic was introduced in the college from the academic session 1988-89 and accordingly, an application was moved for concurrence and permission to open Logic as an optional subject in +2 Arts stream. Thereafter, on 31-10-88, an application was also moved for grant of affiliation with respect to the aforesaid subject. On receiving the said application, the Secretary of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa moved the State Government for grant of concurrence for inclusion of Logic as an optional subject along with other subjects. Thereafter, the college was inspected and a report submitted to the Director, Higher Education, Orissa as well as the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa. After considering the inspection report, the State Government vide its order dated 27-1-90 granted recognition to the college in question from the academic session 1989-90. However, recognition was not granted for Logic as a subject in +2 Arts stream. A representation was made to the Minister of Education and Youth Services Department, Orissa to the effect that concurrence may be granted to the subject Logic as 60 students had been permitted to opt Logic in the institution. The petitioner was also appointed as a Lecturer in Logic on 5-9-88. According to the petitioner, though the Minister of Education had recommended for grant of concurrence for the aforesaid subject with immediate effect, no action was taken. The petitioner was also appointed as a Lecturer in Logic on 5-9-88. According to the petitioner, though the Minister of Education had recommended for grant of concurrence for the aforesaid subject with immediate effect, no action was taken. However, provisional concurrence was accorded to the college during the academic session 1990-91 for the limited purpose of enabling the students to appear at the Annual Examination, 1991. Subsequently, by order dated 26-7-90, the State Government accorded permission for opening of new subjects including Logic during the academic session 1990-91. The Governing Body of the college being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the State Government made a further representation to the Director, Higher Education for granting concurrence to the subject Logic from the academic session 1989-90 instead of 1990-91 which, according to the petitioner, was approved by the Minister of Education, on 1-9-1994. But notwithstanding this, the State Government vide the impugned order rejected the representation for according concurrence to the subject Logic from the academic session 1989-90 instead of 1990-91. ( 3 ) THE case of the opp. parties is that basing upon the inspection report, concurrence was granted in respect of four optional subjects, namely, History, Political Science, Economics and Oriya from the academic session 1989-90 and accordingly, the institution had, in 1988, applied to the Council of Secondary Education for affiliation of those four optional subjects. Subsequently, in the year 1989, the institution also made an application to the Council of Higher Secondary Education for affiliation to Logic as an optional subject. It is the case of the opp. parties that though concurrence had not been given for opening of the subject Logic, the college had admitted the students who had opted Logic as an optional subject and had also appointed the petitioner as a lecturer in Logic and Philosophy. Considering the plight of the students, the State Government was compelled to give provisional concurrence to the subject Logic for the academic session 1989-90 only. It is submitted by the opp. parties that while considering grant of concurrence, the guidelines enumerated in Government Circular No. 3321 (2) EYS, dt. 24-1-91 were kept in mind and accordingly, concurrence was granted to four optional subjects during the academic session 1989-90. It is submitted by the opp. parties that while considering grant of concurrence, the guidelines enumerated in Government Circular No. 3321 (2) EYS, dt. 24-1-91 were kept in mind and accordingly, concurrence was granted to four optional subjects during the academic session 1989-90. On the basis of the inspection report and recommendation made, the Government accorded recognition under section 6 (8) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 to Janata College as a junior college to impart education in +2 Arts stream from the academic session 1989-90 in English and M. I. L. (Oriya) as compulsory subjects and History, Political Science, Economics and Oriya as optional subjects with permissible strength of 128 seats. The opp. parties do not dispute appointment of the petitioner by the resolution of the Governing Body dated 25-9-88, but their case is that his appointment was neither accepted nor approved by the educational authorities as there was no concurrence for the subject Logic during the academic session 1989-90. The opp. parties fairly admit that the Minister of Education had recommended for grant of concurrence with retrospective effect, but when it was brought to his notice that it would be contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, the Minister withdraw his recommendation by his subsequent order dt. 16-4-96. It is further submitted that concurrence was granted to Logic as an optional subject during the academic session 1990-91 on the basis of the inspection report. It is the case of the opp. parties that the petitioner cannot make a prayer in this writ application for ante-dating the concurrence to the year 1989-90 so as to enable him to become eligible for the grant-in-aid. ( 4 ) FROM the facts on record, it is clear that before concurrence was granted by the State Government, the institution in question had admitted students in the subject, Logic and had also appointed the petitioner as a lecturer. By admitting students and appointing the petitioner, neither the institution nor the petitioner can compel the State to grant concurrence to the subject Logic from retrospective effect so that the petitioner becomes eligible to receive his salary components from the grant-in-aid. Since there was non concurrence, the institution in question ought not to have admitted the students to the said subject and also ought not to have appointed the petitioner as a member of the staff. Since there was non concurrence, the institution in question ought not to have admitted the students to the said subject and also ought not to have appointed the petitioner as a member of the staff. The mere fact that concurrence was accorded to other subjects cannot be a ground for compelling the Government to give concurrence to the subject of Logic from the date on which concurrence was accorded to the other subjects. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that by Annexure 14, the Government had given concurrence to an institution for opening of subject Logic as a subject from the academic session 1986-87, but the order itself indicates that that was subject to the condition that the Government shall not bear any financial burden for the same. In the case at hand, what, in fact, is sought by the petitioner is that by giving retrospective concurrence, he should be given the advantage of financial benefits flowing out of such concurrence. In other words, the financial burden is sought to be passed on to the State Government. Thus, the petitioner's case is not similar to that one referred to in Annexure-16. ( 6 ) WHETHER or not to accord concurrence to a particular subject and from which date, is the purely concern of the Government and this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over its decision. Moreover, if looking to the plight of the students who had been wrongly admitted in the academic session 1989-90 having Logic as a subject, provisional concurrence was accorded allowing them to appear at the examination, that cannot also be a ground for compelling the State for ante-dating the concurrence to that academic session. What is sought by the petitioner, in fact, is to legalise the illegality committed by the institution. This cannot be permitted. The fact that the Minister had initially recommended for ante-dating the concurrence can also not be of any avail to the petitioner as the Minister had subsequently withdrawn his earlier order when it was brought to his notice that to do so would be contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Even otherwise, whether to give grant-in-aid or not, is within the discretion of the Government and refusal to do so cannot be construed as an infringement of any right of any staff of an institution. Even otherwise, whether to give grant-in-aid or not, is within the discretion of the Government and refusal to do so cannot be construed as an infringement of any right of any staff of an institution. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, the relief claimed cannot be granted and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. ( 8 ) P. K. MOHANTY, J. : -. I agree. Petition dismissed.