ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK F.A.O. No.433 OF 2009 From a judgment dated 11.9.2009 passed by Shri G. Panigrahi, Presiding Officer, State Education, Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Grant-in-Aid Case No.135 of 2006. -----------… Raghunath Mishra Appellant -versusState of Orissa and others For Appellant: … Respondents M/s. J.Sengupta, D.K. Panda, G.Sinha & A.Mishra. For Respondents: M/s. B.K.Pattanaik, R.K. Nayak & P.K. Mishra (For respondent no.4) M/s. M.K.Mohanty, M.R. Pradhan,T.Pradhan & B.Routray (For respondent no.5) Addl. Government Advocate, (For respondent nos. 1 to
3) --------------------Decided on 31.01.2014 ---------------------- -----PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. DAS -----------------------------------------------------------------------------M.M. DAS,J.This Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 24 (C) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugning the judgment passed by the State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No.135 of 2006 on 11.9.2009. 2 2. Facts of the case reveal that the Chrome Nagar Bidyapitha at Ferrochrome Plant, Jajpur Road in the district of Jajpur was established and accorded recognition in the year 1985-86. Thus, it became a recognized educational institution as defined under section 3 (p) of the Act. Both the appellant and respondent No.5 claimed to have been appointed in the said school as T.G. (PCM) teachers. After the school was notified to be an aided educational institution on 6.5.1995 with effect from 1.6.1995, the Managing Committee of the school vide its resolution dated l5.10.1995 resolved to sent the name of the teachers of the said school for approval in the prescribed proforma basing on the date of joining of the said teachers chronologically and discipline-wise. Accordingly, the staff position was submitted by the Managing Committee of the school before the Inspector of Schools on 13.10.1995. The Inspector of Schools struck down the name of the appellant on the ground that he was No.appointed against any sanctioned post and no more post was admissible to the school as per the prescribed yardstick dated 8.7.1981. Upon coming to kNo.of the same, the appellant made a representation to the Inspector of Schools. The Inspector of Schools referred the matter for approval of service to the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa vide his letter dated 24.11.1995 mentioning therein that the respondent No.5 was appointed against the post of T.G. 3 (PCM) teacher and she has undergone B.Ed. training as an inservice teacher. It was further mentioned by him that the appellant – Raghunath Mishra, was appointed as a teacher on 1.9.1989 after the appointment of the respondent No.5 when there was no post for him in the standard staffing pattern as per the yardstick. The Deputy Director (NGS) by his letter dated 19.7.1997 directed the Inspector of Schools to give approval to the service of the appellant as he is senior on the basis of date of passing of the B.Ed. examination. Being aggrieved by the non-approval of service, the respondent No.5 approached this Court in OJ.No.869 of 1996. This Court vide order dated 8.11.2006 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent No.5 to file a G.I.A. Case in the State Education Tribunal, pursuant to which, the aforesaid G.I.A. Case was filed by the respondent No.5 before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the respondent No.5 before the Tribunal was that one Sabita Guru, who was appointed as T.G. (PCM) teacher in the school on 9.7.1984, submitted her resignation letter on 6.7.1989, which was accepted by the Managing Committee on 13.7.1989. The said post having fallen vacant, the Managing Committee of the school made an advertisement for appointment of teacher to the said post and also sought for names from the Employment Exchange. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the appellant, the 4 respondent No.5 and other five candidates made applications for appointment. The respondent No.5 having M.Sc. in Mathematics qualification as well as teaching experience was selected in the selection test conducted by the Managing Committee on the basis of higher qualification and teaching experience. As per the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 13.7.1989, it was resolved to give appointment to the respondent No.5 in the post of T.G. (PCM) teacher on a consolidated salary of Rs. 950/-. Pursuant to the said resolution, an appointment letter was issued to the respondent No.5 on 15.7.1989 by the Secretary of the Managing Committee and the respondent No.5 joined in the said post on 17.7.1989. The appointment of respondent No.5 was never challenged by the present appellant though he was No.selected. After joining the school against the T.G. (PCM) post, the school mentioned in the “Recognition Form”. for the year 1989-90 the name of the respondent No.5 as a teacher in T.G. (PCM) post and submitted the same before the Educational Authorities on 29.71989 which was accepted by the said authorities and further recognition to the school was granted in the year 1989-90. The respondent No.5 also underwent in-service B.Ed. training in Utkal University being sponsored by the Managing Committee of the School while in service and appeared the B.Ed. examination in September, 1990 and was declared successful when the result 5 was published on 20.5.1991. It was the further case of the respondent No.5 that the appellant was appointed without any resolution of the Managing Committee when there was no vacancy at all in the school and the appointment letter was issued by the Secretary and the Headmaster of the School on 22.8.1989 to the appellant appointing him as an additional teacher in the school with a consolidated salary of Rs. 900/when there was no sanctioned post available as per the yardstick of the year 1981. Further, no prior permission from the educational authority was taken to give such appointment to the appellant. The appellant joined in the school on 1.9.1989 as an additional teacher without approval. It was also alleged by the respondent No.5 that after long time, the Secretary behind the back of the Managing Committee inserted a resolution in the resolution book of the Managing Committee on 18.5.1990.
4. The appellant’s case before the Tribunal was that the respondent No.5, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had no training qualification and it canNo.be said that she was appointed to a Trained Graduate post. After Sabita Guru submitted her resignation, the respondent No.5 was appointed as a Science Teacher for urgent requirement of the school, as the academic session has already started by then. He further asserted that since a qualified trained teacher was to be appointed as against the admissible post of Sabita Guru, the 6 appellant, pursuant to the advertisement made application along with others and faced interview and got the appointment on being selected on 21.8.1989. He joined the school on 1.9.1989.
5. The Tribunal after noting the pleadings of each of the parties and the facts of the case entered into the disputed question as to whether the respondent No.5, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, can be held to have been appointed to a Trained Graduate Teacher (PCM) post without training qualification. Relying upon the decision in the case of Bibekananda Das v. State of Orissa and others, 1997 (II) OLR 122, the learned Tribunal ultimately held that the application filed by the respondent No.5 should be allowed and accordingly passed orders allowing the said application by quashing the approval of the present appellant-opposite party No.5 service and further directing the approval of the applicant’s (respondent No.5) against the post of TGT (PCM) of Chrome Nagar Bidyapitha at Ferro Chrome Plant under Jajpur Education Circle with effect from 20.5.1991 and to release the grant-in-aid in her favour with effect from 1.6.1994. It was further directed that the said order shall be complied with within a period of three months.
6. It is an admitted case that both the appellant and the respondent No.5 were appointed prior to 1990 but when the 7 respondent No.5 was appointed, he did No.acquire the B.Ed. qualification by that date.
7. In the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra), this Court laid down that if a teacher is appointed as against a TGT post though he was untrained before the school became an aided school, there was no bar for such appointment in such a nonGovernment High School under the prescribed rules and his appointment canNo.be disapproved merely because he did No.possess the training qualification. In the present case, the school became aided with effected from 1.6.1995 and the respondent No.5 also acquired the training qualification as an in-service candidate being sponsored by the Managing Committee, in 1991. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.5 could No.have been disapproved. This Court, therefore, finds that the Tribunal has No.committed any error in passing the impugned judgment. The said judgment, therefore, does No.require any interference of this Court in this appeal.
8. The FAO being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. ……………………… M. M. Das, J.Orissa High Court, Cuttack. January 31st ,2014/Kkb/Bks 8