Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 775 (ORI)

Gouranga Charan Rout v. State of Orissa

2017-07-24

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. N. PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 19.6.1997 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA.No.1443(C) of 1997 is under challenge, whereby and where under the Tribunal, while dismissing the original application, has declined to consider the petitioner as in service candidate deputed for training and accordingly claim of the salary during the training period has been refused to be granted. 2. Fact of the case is that the petitioner entered into service as an Assistant Teacher on 15.9.1989 as an untrained candidate, gone for Certified Teachers Training in Government secondary Training School, Khalikote as an in service candidate. The petitioner, after completion of the training, has joined service on 2.4.1991. The authorities have denied salary of the period of the training, hence he made due representation for its consideration since, according to the petitioner, other similarly situated persons have been allowed the said benefit. 3. The State had appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the relief sought for by the petitioner by submitting that the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the training period for the reason that he was appointed without having any training qualification in untrained scale of pay on the condition that he will complete the training qualification within three years from the date of appointment otherwise he shall be terminated from service. It has been submitted that cases of others are different to that of the case of the petitioner and as such the Tribunal is right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The petitioner, who admittedly has got his service as Assistant Teacher without having any training as required with the undertaking with the Department that he will get training for a period of three years. He, after his joining, has proceeded to get training and thereafter he joined on 2.4.1991. He claims is salary for the period of training and to that effect he has represented before the authority but the authority have denied his claim on the ground that it is not a case of in service training rather in order to facilitate his continuance as Primary School Teacher he was selected and relieved for training. 6. He claims is salary for the period of training and to that effect he has represented before the authority but the authority have denied his claim on the ground that it is not a case of in service training rather in order to facilitate his continuance as Primary School Teacher he was selected and relieved for training. 6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the assertions of the State, has rejected the original application mainly on the ground that the petitioner cannot be treated as in service teacher for training, said order is under challenge. 7. We have got nothing on record that the petitioner has ever been considered as in service candidate for training and on that ground the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of the authority. According to our considered view, the petitioner has failed to make out a case before the Tribunal regarding being an in service candidate, hence his claim has been rejected. 8. Accordingly, we found nothing on record to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.