Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1028 (ORI)

Niranjan Das v. State of Orissa

2017-09-12

S.PANDA, S.PUJAHARI

body2017
ORDER W.P.(C) Nos. 19366,20234, 20536,20543,20595,20596,20597,20598,20599 of 2009 and W.P.(C) Nos. 1346 and 6202 of 2010 12.9.2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education. 2. All these writ petitions have been filed challenging a common order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in a batch of Original Applications. Since all the writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. It appears that all the writ petitioners had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in separate Original Applications seeking for setting aside the order of the Inspector of Schools under the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa cancelling their promotion to the posts of Headmaster of taken over U.P. (M.E.) Schools in Bhadrak Education Circle. The learned Tribunal in the impugned common judgment dismissed all the Original Applications filed by the present writ petitioners, but allowed the Original Application filed by one Padmanav Panda whose name finds place at Sl. No. 15 in General Category of the selection list. 4. For convenience, the facts and materials available in W.P.(C) No. 20543 of 2009 are taken into consideration. 5. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was working as a teacher in Mahatab M.E. School Bhadrak-I having B.Ed qualification under the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak-I. After the U.P. (M.E.) School was taken over by the Government, a decision was taken to fill up the vacancies of posts of Headmaster in the said taken over M.E./U.G.M.E. Schools by allowing promotion to Assistant Trained Graduate Teachers. The selection process was undertaken on the basis of the Gradation list prepared by the Inspector of Schools for Assistant Trained Graduate Teachers and the petitioner along with 26 others were selected for promotion to the post of Headmaster of taken over U.P. (M.E.) Schools. The order dated 31.07.1997 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition clearly indicates that the District Selection Committee conducted the selection on 31.07.1997 in the Office of the Inspector of Schools with four other members and selected the candidates as mentioned therein for promotion to the posts of Headmaster. The name of the petitioner against S.C. category appears at Sl. The order dated 31.07.1997 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition clearly indicates that the District Selection Committee conducted the selection on 31.07.1997 in the Office of the Inspector of Schools with four other members and selected the candidates as mentioned therein for promotion to the posts of Headmaster. The name of the petitioner against S.C. category appears at Sl. No. 3 and the name of Padmanav Panda whose Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal appears at Sl. No. 15 in the said list of selected Assistant Trained Graduate Teachers. Form Annexure-5, it appears that 35 posts of Headmaster were lying vacant in different U.P. (M.E.) Schools which were sought to be filled up from out of the list of selected teachers under Annexure-4. The petitioner was promoted to the Post of Headmaster and posted as such in Narasinghpur U.P. (M.E.) School, Bhadrak-II Circle which does not find place in the list of Schools under Annexure-5 having vacant post of Headmaster. However, such promotion as per the petitioner had been given for administrative convenience. It also appears from Annexure-6 that the pay of the petitioner had been fixed at Rs. 1400-2600/- admissible to Headmasters of taken over U.P. (M.E.) Schools. After introduction of the cadre rules in August, 1997, the Director informed all the Inspectors of Schools to cancel such promotion and under Annexure-9 to the writ petition the promotion of the petitioner and some others was cancelled. Challenging the said cancellation order, the present writ petitioners approached the Tribunal in separate Original Applications and all the Original Applications were dismissed by the common judgment impugned before us. 6. It appears that all these writ petitions are identical to O.J.C. No. 12250 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2008 with the following orders:- “We are, therefore, of the view that had the petitioner been promoted as Headmaster and posted in Hari Narayan U.P. (M.E. School) instead of Patrisahi U.P. (M.E.) School, the Tribunal would have allowed this application since Harinarayan U.P. (M.E.) School finds place in the list of Schools where a post of Headmaster was lying vacant. Apart from the above as stated earlier, in the select list of Assistant Trained Graduate Teachers, the petitioner’s name finds place above the said Padmanav Panda and therefore, the Tribunal could not have allowed the application of Padmanav Panda by upholding his promotion and rejecting the Original Application filed by the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Tribunal instead of dismissing the Original Application should have allowed the same by directing the Department to adjust the petitioner in the post of Headmaster in any of the listed Schools in Annexure-5. It is stated that the petitioner has already retired form service in the meantime after superannuation. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be given promotion to the post of Headmaster of any taken over U.P. (M.E.) School with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted and such promotion shall be given only for the purpose of retirement benefits. The petitioner having not worked as Headmaster, he is not entitled to any arrear differential salary. The period of service as Headmaster as directed above shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. The judgment of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.” 7. No material has been produced before us to show that the aforesaid order of this Court has been challenged anywhere. It is stated that all the writ petitioners have already retired from service in the meantime after superannuation. All the writ petitioners are similarly situated with the writ petitioner in O.J.C. No. 12250 of 1999 and their case is squarely covered by the order passed in the said writ petition, is not disputed by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of all the writ petitions with a direction to the Authority concerned to consider the case of the writ petitioners in terms of the order dated 29.10.2008 passed in O.J.C. No. 12250 of 1999. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Petition dismissed.