Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 495 (ORI)

Pramila Rout v. State of

2014-08-18

BISWANATH RATH

body2014
JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J.: These appeals are directed against the order dated order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case Nos. 501 and 503 of 2011, on the ground that instead of adjudicating the matter, the learned Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for consideration of the grant-in-aid matter fixing the time limit in the impugned order, which is without jurisdiction. 2. The short fact of the case in hand is that one G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) was duly appointed against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sociology by the Governing Body of S.S.B. College, Mahakalpada, district Kendrapara on 20.11.1985 and he joined on 25.11.1985. The Governing Body of the college also appointed respondent no.4 against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sociology, on which she joined on 25.11.1985, the date of joining of G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant). The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 29.1.1999 (Anexure-5) allowed G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) to receive GIA against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sociology and rejected the claim of the respondent no.4 against the same. The said order was challenged by respondent no.4 in O.J.C. No. 2896 of 1999 to quash the order under letter dated 29.1.1999 (Anexure-5) passed by respondent No.1 and to approve her appointment w.e.f. 25.11.1985 as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sociology and to release the salary component accordingly which was contested by G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant). The name of G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) was validated from 1.6.1987 vide order dated 9.1.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent no.1. The said order was challenged by respondent no.4 in O.J.C. No. 9190 of 2001 for quashing the impugned order dated 9.1.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent no.1 and to direct the respondents to validate her service as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sociology. Pursuant to the letter dated 9.2.2001 (Annexure-7) addressed by respondent no.1 to the Director (respondent no.2) cancelled the order of regularizing G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) under Validation Act. The said order was assailed by G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) in O.J.C. No. 3019 of 2001 which was disposed of on 19.4.2001 setting aside the impugned order dated 9.2.2001 reviving the order of approval dated 9.1.2001 which fact was intimated to respondent no.3 on 20.8.2001. The said order was assailed by G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) in O.J.C. No. 3019 of 2001 which was disposed of on 19.4.2001 setting aside the impugned order dated 9.2.2001 reviving the order of approval dated 9.1.2001 which fact was intimated to respondent no.3 on 20.8.2001. Respondent no.1 vide letter dated 20.7.2005 (Annexure-9) approved the post of the G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) for payment of GIA. On 24.7.2008 G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) suddenly expired. The Hon’ble Court transferred the two writ petitions, OJC Nos. 2896/1999 and 9190/2001 to the Tribunal on the ground that the matters relate to GIA as per section 24(b) of the Orissa Education Act. The said writ petitions are renumbered as GIA Case Nos. 501 and 503 of 2011. The Tribunal disposed of the said GIA Cases directing respondent no.1 to enquire into the claim of G.C. Rout (husband of the appellant) and respondent no.4 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The case of the appellant is that she was neither noticed nor any of her legal heirs were substituted. The order passed by the Tribunal is under challenge whereas separate writ the order of the respondent no.1 is under challenge in writ petition. 3. The learned Presiding Officer, State Educational Tribunal was not satisfied with the materials available on record. The papers relating to the recruitment process are not available in the Institution and are missing for which, in the interest of justice, in the interest of justice, referred the matter vide the impugned judgment to the respondent-state government to decide the claim adhering the principle of natural justice. 4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellants assails the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the learned Presiding Officer, State Educational Tribunal instead of deciding the matter in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act could not have remanded the matter to the respondent no.1 directing them to dispose of the GIA matter within three moths from the date of communication of the order. He vehemently urged that without adjudicating the dispute, the learned Presiding Officer, State Educational Tribunal has no authority to remit the matter back to the State for consideration and law does not permit the Tribunal to remit the matter back to the authority for consideration instead of adjudicating the same on his own. 5. Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the otherhand supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He states that by due application of mind the impugned judgments have been passed, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same and seeks for dismissal of the appeals. 6. The very nomenclature of Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act indicates “Adjudication by Tribunal”. The said provisions has been considered by this Court in Jitendra Kishore Baghasingh and others v. State of Orissa and others : 2008 (Supp.-I) OLR 316 : 105 (2008) CLT 330 : AIR 2008 Ori. 56 , wherein this Court observed as follows : “Matter relating to or connected with – (i) Eligibility (ii) Entitlement (iii) Payment (iv) Non-payment of grant-in-aid and (v) The dispute thereof (a) Between the Managing Committee/Governing Body of private educational institution versus teachers or employees of such institution, or (b) Between Managing Committee/Governing Body of private educational institution versus the State Govt. or any officer or authority of the said Government, shall be within the competency of Orissa State Educational Tribunal to consider the dispute.” and considering the said provision, it was held by this Court that adjudication of disputes relating to GIA being within the competency of State Educational Tribunal, it is not proper to decide the same even in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court while considering the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in Dr. Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and two others, 2009 (II) OLR 709 held as follows : “ It is due to failure on the part of the Administrative Authority to give justice to such claim of persons, who were in Govt. service, the legislatures thought it proper to enact the Administrative Tribunal Act, and the Administrative Tribunals were created another reason for the same is to reduce the burden of the High Court which was flooded with cases relating to service matters. service, the legislatures thought it proper to enact the Administrative Tribunal Act, and the Administrative Tribunals were created another reason for the same is to reduce the burden of the High Court which was flooded with cases relating to service matters. From the action of the Tribunal in sending back the matter to the Government, it appears that the Administrative Tribunal is acting like a Post Office and not adjudicating the case as the statute demands.” 8. Similar view has also been taken by the apex court in State of West Bengal v. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and others, AIR 2010 SC 2927 , wherein it is held as follows : “Whether the Administrative Tribunal can delegate its power to judicial review and confer the same upon a Chief Engineer ? The Tribunals cannot travel beyond the power conferred on them and delegate their essential function and duty to decide service related disputes. Such delegation is as initio void. It is too elementary to re-state that no judicial tribunal can delegate its responsibilities except where it is authorized to do so expressly. The power conferred upon the Administrative Tribunals under the provisions of the said Act flows from Article 323-A of the Constitution. Such power can never be delegated except under a valid law made by parliament. The tribunals by their own act cannot delegate the power to decide any dispute which in law is required to be decided exclusively by such tribunals.” 9. In view of such position, if the statute vests a power with the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute the disputes with regard to eligibility of grant-in-aid, it could not have divested the said power by passing the impugned order. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, 1936 PC 253 and subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Lal and another, AIR 1970 SC 7 ; Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. V. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 and Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281 and various Courts that if the statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in the same manner or not at all. 10. V. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 and Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281 and various Courts that if the statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in the same manner or not at all. 10. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. Therefore, the judgment dated 24.2.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in G.I.A. Case Nos. 501 & 503 of 2011 out of which FAO Nos. 186 and 187 of 2014 arises, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to re-hear the G.I.A. Case Nos. 501 & 503 of 2011 afresh and dispose of the same after giving due opportunity to the parties. The Tribunal is directed to do well in disposing of the GIA Cases under remand by the end of December, 2014. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of the order before the Tribunal by 5.9.2014 and the Tribunal is to act on the same. With the above observation and direction, the appeals are allowed.