Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 535 (ORI)

ARJOON CHARAN DASH v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-07-14

I.MAHANTY, L.MOHAPATRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - This writ application has been filed by the Petitioner who has been working as a Lecturer in English and holding the First Post at U.K. Mahabir College, Madanpur under Utkal University. He was appointed in the said post on 11.07.1983. 2. It is averred by the Petitioner that since he had possessed the required percentage of marks and had fulfilled the eligibility criteria, his appointment should have been approved by the concerned authorities and refusal of according approval was allegedly on the basis of an erroneous ground that the Petitioner did not possess 55% marks in the Master Degree Level Examination. 3. This case had originally come to be disposed of by a Judgment dated 30.08.2000 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court directing the authorities to allow grant-in-aid to the Petitioner from the date he is entitled to and release the arrears within a period of six months from the date of communication of that order in consonance with the ratio of the Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Laxmikanta Padhi v. State of Orissa in O.J.C. No. 2255 of 1989, disposed of on 5.2.1992 and the letter of the Government dated 5.8.1989. That Judgment was sought to be challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the batch of similar communicated cases being numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 5211, 5212 and 5213 of 2003 and came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a common Order Dated 25th July, 2003 with the following directions: The main grievance of the Appellants is that the High Court did not consider decision of this Court reported in State of Orissa and another Vs. Damodar Nayak and another, and the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Civil Review No. 87 of 1996 dated 5.5.1998 titled State of Orissa v. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra. We feel it would be appropriate if the High Court hears the writ applications afresh. It will be open to the parties to raise all the pleas at the time of hearing of the writ applications including the applicability of the aforesaid decisions. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the parties. The matters are remitted accordingly and the appeals stand disposed of finally. No costs. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the parties. The matters are remitted accordingly and the appeals stand disposed of finally. No costs. This matter was heard afresh in this Court in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted hereinabove. 4. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner's institution i.e. U.K. Mahabir College got affiliation from the Utkal University on 1.6.1983 and was eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1988. It was submitted that at the time of appointment the Petitioner had secured 37.3% marks in M.A. English Examination and the Petitioner re-appeared in the M.A. English Examination for the second time in the year 1988 to improve his percentage of marks result of which was published on 19.3.1989 and the Petitioner has secured 50% marks in the said M.A. Examination. Learned Counsel submitted that the State Government vide its letter dated 5.8.1989, addressed to the Director, Higher Education, directed that under-qualified teachers appointed in Non-Government colleges by the concerned management before the college became aided may be made eligible to receive grant-in-aid notwithstanding their "under qualification", provided they were appointed during the period from 1.4.1982 to 31.12.1984. The said letter further directed that "under qualified teachers" can be allowed to receive grant-in-aid from the date they held the post in the existing grant-in-aid policy, subject to the condition that, they should acquire M.Phil Degree or Master Degree by 31.12.1994, failing which their annual increments will be stopped. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner having improved his marks in M.A. to 50% on 19.3.1989 and having prosecuted his M.Phil course and was awarded with the M.Phil Degree on 1.3.1993. Mr. Mohanty, submitted that since the Petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria for being entitled to receive grant-in-aid, denial of the same to him was erroneous in law as well as discriminatory since a member of persons, similarly situated, like the Petitioner who had secured below 48% marks in M.A. Examination had been sanctioned grant-in-aid. In support of this submission, Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Annexure-9 to the writ application. 5. The issue raised by the Petitioner in this case is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. Damodar Nayak and another. In support of this submission, Learned Counsel has placed reliance on Annexure-9 to the writ application. 5. The issue raised by the Petitioner in this case is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. Damodar Nayak and another. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court came to hold that since the first Respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification and acquired the same only on a latter date, he will be eligible to the benefit of the grant-in-aid with effect from the date on which the requisite qualification was obtained. 6. In the present case at hand although no objection can be raised against the Petitioner's appointment on 11.7.1983, although the Petitioner had only 37.3% marks in M.A. Examination, yet the Petitioner has, thereafter, re-appeared in M.A. Examination and has obtained 50% marks on 19.3.1989. Therefore, the Petitioner would be entitled to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 20.3.1989. Further, since the Petitioner has also obtained M.Phil Degree on 1.3.1993 i.e. within the period directed by the State Government vide Annexure-7, the Petitioner would also be entitled to annual increments in terms thereof. The arrears may be computed and released in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six months from the date of communication of this Judgment. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. L. Mohapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed