Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 549 (ORI)

Gayasuddin Khan v. State of Odisha

2017-05-09

S.N.PRASAD, SANJU PANDA

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner wherein the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.899(C) of 2010 is under challenge whereby and where under the grievance of the petitioner regarding approval of his appointment as Craft Teacher in Dasarathpur High School and to release his salary from the date of his appointment i.e.16.8.1984 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that Dasarathpur High School where he was working became an aided educational institution since 1983 and thereafter he was appointed as a Craft Teacher by the Managing Committee vide order dated 16.8.1984, joined the post on the very same date. Service of the petitioner as Craft Teacher having not been approved, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1581 of 2003, this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 19.2.2010 given liberty to the petitioner to approach the State administrative Tribunal if so advised, in pursuance thereof the petitioner has filed O.A.No.899(C) of 2010 for ventilating his grievance but the Tribunal has dismissed the original application which is the subject of the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that there is a post of Craft Teacher which is sanctioned post but even thereafter his service has not been approved in the said post, this point has been urged before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, without appreciating the material fact, has dismissed the original application without any application of mind. 4. While on the other hand, case of the opposite party-State is that the petitioner has been appointed in the school in question by the Managing Committee on16.8.1984, i.e. after the school became an educational institution in the year 1983. As per the 1981 yardstick, post of Craft Teacher in the High School being a dying cadre and as such it was not in existence when the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee on 16.8.1984. As per the 1981 yardstick, post of Craft Teacher in the High School being a dying cadre and as such it was not in existence when the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee on 16.8.1984. The Managing Committee of the school has appointed the petitioner without getting the post sanctioned from the appropriate authority for appointment of Craft Teacher and no procedure has been followed, prior approval has also not been obtained from the competent authority, as such the petitioner cannot claim for approval of his service of the said post, the Tribunal after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has rightly passed order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The fact which is not in dispute is that the school in question has got status of aided educational institution in the year 1983. The petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher in the school by the Managing Committee vide order dated 16.8.1984, at the time when the petitioner joined his service in the school, 1981 yardstick was prevalent and the post of Craft Teacher has been said to be dying cadre and as such it was not in existence when the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee on 16.8.1984. The Managing Committee has appointed him without obtaining the post sanctioned from the appropriate authority. It is evident from the record that the Managing Committee has not moved the Inspector of Schools to send Selection Board candidate to be appointed against the said post of Craft Teacher. In case the Inspector of School failed to send Selection Board candidate, the Managing Committee was at liberty to obtain permission from the concerned authority to appoint the Craft Teacher on their own, no names were also called for from the Employment Exchange nor any advertisement was issued in a widely circulated newspaper inviting applications for such appointment since the school was recognized/aided educational institution. The Managing Committee has appointed the petitioner as Craft Teacher without prior approval/permission of the competent authority and also without following due procedure. In view of such procedural lapses and in absence of the post having not been sanctioned by the competent authority, claim of the petitioner for approval of his service as Craft Teacher found to be not tenable by the Tribunal. 7. In view of such procedural lapses and in absence of the post having not been sanctioned by the competent authority, claim of the petitioner for approval of his service as Craft Teacher found to be not tenable by the Tribunal. 7. We, after going through the order passed by the Tribunal which is based upon material produced before it and the Tribunal after taking into consideration that the post itself was not sanctioned at the time when the petitioner was appointed and further procedure was not followed for filling up the post of Craft Teacher in the aided educational institution. We, after, taking into consideration the finding given by the Tribunal, are of the considered view that the order does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.