Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 740 (ORI)

ANNAPURNA RAY ` ALIA JENA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-08-22

I.M.QUDDUSI, SANJU PANDA

body2008
JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - Since the disputes involved in both the writ petitions are common, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Challenge has been made in these writ petitions to the order dated 13.8.2001 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos. 2436(C)/2000 & 2437(C)/2000 whereby the Tribunal disposed of the Original Applications observing that prima facie it was found that the fraud was committed in the Department of Mass Education long ago in the year 1981 when the letter now declared as forged was issued by some officers of that Department at that time. Direct fraud was not attributed to the applicants. It is true that they produced the certificate issued by a non-existent organization but whether they were aware of the fact was not clear from the materials. Most probably some organization at Allahabad was duping the students by issuing such certificates after enrolling them for a course which they were not authorized to conduct. But it was difficult to conclude that the applicants produced fake certificates knowing them to be fake. Since the applicants lacked prescribed qualification for the post, the dismissal orders could not be interfered with and no direction could be given for their reinstatement. With the above observations, the Tribunal further directed that since the applicants rendered six years of service as teachers and prior to that they had also been utilized as Sikhya Karmies, it would be fair and proper if they are re-appointed if they acquire the training qualification at their own costs and on successful completion of the said training they may be considered for appointment against the future vacancies which are earmarked for the General (Women) category to which they belong. The said appointments be made obtaining Government orders for relaxation under Rule 16 of the OEES Rules, 1997 and their upper age limit be relaxed if it becomes necessary after giving them the benefit of normal relaxation available to women candidates. 2. The main contentions of the Petitioners are as follows: The Petitioners having HSC qualifications applied for the post of Sikhya Karmies in the district of Sundargarh. As per the Government resolution dated 3.8.1989, the Petitioners were eligible to be appointed as Sikhya Karmies without having C.T. training qualification and were selected in due process of selection. District Inspector of Schools, Bonei vide order Nos. As per the Government resolution dated 3.8.1989, the Petitioners were eligible to be appointed as Sikhya Karmies without having C.T. training qualification and were selected in due process of selection. District Inspector of Schools, Bonei vide order Nos. 2929 and 2128 dated 15.9.1992 and 19.10.1990 respectively issued appointment letters in favour the Petitioners in the district of Sundargarh. In pursuance of the said appointment letters, the Petitioners joined their service as Sikhya Karmies and were getting monthly remuneration of Rs. 400/-. While they were continuing as such, they acquired Sikshya Visarad Training qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sameelan, Allahabad and produced the said certificate before the District Inspector of Schools which was accepted as equivalent qualification to the C.T. training in the State of Orissa. At that point of time, the Petitioners neither produced any letter of the Government of Orissa nor did they produce any document before the D.I. of Schools to accept the Sikshya Visarad training qualification as equivalent to the C.T. training. In the year 1994, the State Government took a decision that all the Sikhya Karmies of the State should be regularized as primary school teachers on regular scale of pay against the vacant posts. Accordingly, the services of the Petitioners were regularized vide Office Order No. 9, dated 31.3.1994 as primary school teachers against the trained Matric scale of pay with usual D.A. as admissible by the Government from time to time with effect from 1.2.1994. The Petitioners along with a number of untrained Sikhya Karmies were regularized as primary school teachers against the untrained scale of pay and allowed to get the untrained scale of pay onwards. While the matter stood thus, this Court in OJC No. 1259 of 1995 by judgment dated 6.5.1997 held that the certificate of Sikshya Visarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sameelan, Allahabad was not equivalent to the C.T. training of Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and after the pronouncement of the said judgment of this Court, the Petitioners were given untrained scale of pay and was treated as untrained teachers. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioners applied for undergoing C.T. training in the years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as in-service teachers and every year their applications were sent to D.I of Schools by Block Development Officer for sponsoring their cases to the Director of SCERT for allowing them to undergo C.T. Training as in-service teachers as 50% seats were reserved for untrained primary school teachers. Without sponsoring the Petitioners' names to undergo C.T. Training, the District Inspector of Schools initiated proceedings in the year 2000 and charges were framed against the Petitioners which were communicated to them. The charges were (i) they fraudulently secured employment on the basis of false certificates and (ii) as per Government Order No. 34498 dated 2.11.1995 and the judgment of the Court that the qualification of Sikshya Visarad was not equivalent to Matric C.T. qualification which was the minimum qualification for appointment of a primary school teacher prescribed by the statute. Since they had no minimum qualification to hold the posts, their services were liable to be terminated. Therefore, show-cause was called for from the applicants within thirty days. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice, the Petitioners filed their reply. In the said reply, the Petitioners specifically stated that they may be treated as untrained teachers and their names may be sponsored for undergoing C.T. training. But the authority did not consider the same and without following the procedure, by order dated 28.7.2000 imposed major penalty and directed their services to be terminated without preparing any enquiry report and also directed to Headmaster of the School to relieve them on 29.7.2000 afternoon. Challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools, they filed the Original Application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and in the Original Applications, they reiterated their bona fide and also prayed that the termination of their services was illegal and they may be treated as untrained primary school teachers. The opposite parties appeared in the Original Applications and filed their counter taking a plea that as the Petitioners obtained the certificates fraudulently and were appointed by producing the forged documents, their services were rightly terminated. They had no minimum requisite qualification to hold the posts of primary school teachers. So, on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal observed as stated in the above paragraphs. 3. They had no minimum requisite qualification to hold the posts of primary school teachers. So, on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal observed as stated in the above paragraphs. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that in Clause-5 of the Government Resolution dated 3.8.1989 published in the Orissa Gazette Supplementary No. 51 dated 22.12.1989, vide Annexure-I, it was specifically stated that in the districts of Kalahandi, Koraput, Phulbani, Sambalpur, Sundargarh and Bolangir if the posts of Sikhya Karmies would be taken out for non-availability of reserved category (S.C. & S.T.) then the said posts would be filled up by the General Women candidates having Matric qualification without C.T. training qualification and if such female candidates would not be available, then Male candidates should be considered and in view of that circular, the Petitioners applied for the posts of Sikhya Karmies and were appointed as such. Therefore, at no point of time they fraudulently obtained an order of appointment. While they were continuing as such, the Government of Orissa on 26.6.2000 directed all the District Inspector of Schools that if untrained teachers' were appointed validly and sanctioned trained school teachers on production of training certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sameelan, Allahabad then their trained scale of pay may be withheld immediately and they may be allowed to draw trained scale of pay and in view of such government order, the Petitioners were not getting the trained scale of pay. He further submitted that similarly situated persons like the Petitioners are also now continuing in the service and getting untrained scale of pay. However, without following the procedure, the Petitioners' services have been terminated which amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. To the specific allegations of the Petitioners, the opposite parties in their counter affidavit did not whisper anything and in December, 2007 they filed an additional affidavit stating therein that the Director, Elementary Education directed to terminate the persons who were continuing in service as untrained primary school teacher on the basis of the Sikshya Visarad certificate and to the said additional affidavit, the Petitioners filed a rejoinder in January, 2008 stating therein that similarly situated persons are still continuing in the service and their services have not yet been terminated and they are getting untrained scale of pay. However, the Petitioners' service was terminated since 2000 which was a discrimination on the part of the authority. Therefore, they are entitled to be reinstated in the service. 5. This Court verified the records and found that the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal was reasonable and as the Petitioners had no minimum requisite qualifications to be appointed in the post of primary school teachers, it rightly did not direct the authority to reinstate the Petitioners. Law is well settled that to get an appointment in a post, a person shall possess minimum requisite qualification to hold the said post. Since the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification to hold the post, termination of his service was upheld by the apex Court. (See (2008)4 see 446, Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.. In the present case, the Petitioners did not have the requisite qualification. Therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any illegality or irregularity in not reinstating the Petitioners. It also rightly observed that the Petitioners rendered six years of service as teachers prior to that and as they had been utilized as Sikhya Karmies, it would be fair and proper if, after acquiring the training qualification by them at their own cost, their case for re-appointment is considered by the authority liberally. The Petitioners have not made out any case that their names should be sponsored to undergo C.T. training as in-service candidates since they are not in service from the year 2000. As no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned orders passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 6. The authority may consider the case of the Petitioners as per the directions of the Tribunal dated 13.8.2001 and also taking into consideration the fact that if similarly situated persons are still continuing in service then the Petitioners should be given a chance. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. I.M. Quddusi, J. 7. I agree.