Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1186 (ORI)

Santosh Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha

2016-12-02

D.DASH

body2016
JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed under Section 24-C of Odisha Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter in short call as “the Education Act”) challenging and order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No. 13 of 2014 vacating the interim order of status quo passed by it on 28.01.2014. 2. Facts necessary for the purpose may be stated as under: The appellant claims to have joined against the second post of Lecturer in Economics in Haladia College situated at Haladia in the district of Khurda on 25.05.1990 wherein both +2 and +3 wings were there with approval of the said appointment being given by the Governing Body on 27.01.1991. It is stated that he remained absent from 11.01.1994 to 16.02.2010 unauthorizedly having accepted the appointment and performed the duty as Junior Accounts Assistant in Urban Co-operative Bank at Bhubaneswar. So, it is said by the respondent that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of grant-in-aid as prayed for. It is stated that after a thorough and careful inquiry made by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar as per the direction of the Tribunal in G.I.A. Case No. 213 of 2010, it has been so found. There being the approval of the service of respondent no. 5 as against the first post of Lecturer in Economics in Haladia Degree College, Halada and release of Block Grant against the said post therefore is stated to be justified. It is further stated that the case as laid in the very application before the Tribunal by the appellant goes to show that he, in fact, does not seek any relief against the respondent no. 5 whose service has been approved and who has been granted with the Block Grant in respect of +3 Degree College, Haldia as per G.I.A. Order, 2009. 3. The prayer made in the G.I.A. application are the followings: “(a) set aside/quash the order dated 13.1.2014 at Annexure-15 and any consequential order passed by the G.B. on the basis of order dated 13.01.2014 be quashed; (b) declare that the applicant is entitled to be adjusted against 1st admissible post of +2 wing and the respondent no. 3. The prayer made in the G.I.A. application are the followings: “(a) set aside/quash the order dated 13.1.2014 at Annexure-15 and any consequential order passed by the G.B. on the basis of order dated 13.01.2014 be quashed; (b) declare that the applicant is entitled to be adjusted against 1st admissible post of +2 wing and the respondent no. 7 (Nirod Kumar Dash) should have been adjusted against 1st admissible post of +3 wing and direct the State-Respondents to approve the post of the applicant and release the block grant in favour of the applicant w.e.f. 1.2.2009 on the basis of 2009 block grant order; (c) direct the State-Respondents and G.B. to conduct enquiry against the respondent no. 5 regarding his involvement in supplying the copies to the students in Annual +3 Examination, 2010 and for prosecuting his M.Phil. course at Khalikote Autonomous College, Berhampur as a regular candidate without availing study leave and taking salary from the G.B. by suppressing the facts during the said period and take action against him in accordance with law. And further pleased to declare that the appointment of the respondent no. 5 is nonest as the G.B. has not been empowered to make such appointment; and (d) pass any order/direction as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Fact remains that Haldia Junior College was continuing with Government concurrence from the academic session 1984-85 and had received the grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.06.1994. Haldia Degree College came to be established with the concurrence of the Government from the academic session 1990-91 and it started functioning w.e.f. 01.06.1990, i.e. the beginning academic session vide Government order dated 22.08.1990. The physical bifurcation of the institution, staffs of Haldia College by separation of +2 and + 3 colleges being made, the service of the appellant was placed in 2 college whereas the respondent no. 5 was placed in degree college. Both the colleges have been separately notified as aided institutions. The bifurcation of the staffs of the college was made vide resolution dated 21.12.2009 and the notification of the degree college as an aided college is dated 26.04.2010. The settled position of law remains that there is no concept of composite college. 5 was placed in degree college. Both the colleges have been separately notified as aided institutions. The bifurcation of the staffs of the college was made vide resolution dated 21.12.2009 and the notification of the degree college as an aided college is dated 26.04.2010. The settled position of law remains that there is no concept of composite college. Therefore, the appellant can lay no claim over the Haladia Degree College Furthermore, in order to provide support it is pointed out that the percentage of mark in the subject for appointment as a Lecturer in the degree college is fixed at 55% which the appellant does not possess in M.A., Economics. His appointment is dated 15.05.1990 and joining is on 25.05.1990 when there was no existence of the degree college. The percentage of marks in M.A. Economics in so far as the appellant is concerned justifies his appointment in the junior college whereas the respondent no. 5’s appointment is on 01.06.1996 and with his required percentage of marks in M.A. Economics he has been taken against the degree college vide resolution dated 21.12.2009. 5. In this G.I.A. Case No. 13 of 2014, the appellant is not questioning the resolution dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Government Body of the College. He has now prayed before the Tribunal for adjustment of respondent no. 7 (Sri Nirod Kumar Das) an approved Lecturer of Junior College being entitled to receive full cost of salary under the direct payment scheme in the degree college and consequentially claims that he (appellant) be so adjusted in the junior college assigned with due position. This respondent no. 7 is not independently making any such claim. The approval order of Nirod Kumar Dash has been filed by the opposite party no. 5 as Annexure-D/8. Now here the allegations have been made that the respondent no. 5 was prosecuting his M.Phil. course without permission of the college authority and he also at some point of time had indulged in malpractice in the examination process. All these are of hardly any consequence and rather have no significance for adjudication of the claim laid by the appellant looking at the prayers made in the application filed before the Tribunal. course without permission of the college authority and he also at some point of time had indulged in malpractice in the examination process. All these are of hardly any consequence and rather have no significance for adjudication of the claim laid by the appellant looking at the prayers made in the application filed before the Tribunal. In the above factual backdrop of the case, learned Tribunal after hearing the parties having vacated the direction given to the parties to maintain status quo in the matter till appearance of the opposite parties, as an interim measure, this Court finds no justification and reason to interfere with the same. 6. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.