Dismissed

Santosh Ku.Mohanty v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC2 Dec 2016FAO/154/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed an appeal filed by a Lecturer challenging the State Education Tribunal's order vacating an interim status quo direction. The Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's decision regarding the appellant's claim for grant-in-aid adjustment in a bifurcated college.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Santosh Ku.Mohanty Vs State of Orissa — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.

¶2

F.A. O. NO. 154 of 2016

¶3

(From the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in G.I.A. Case No. 13 of 2014)

¶4

Santosh Kumar Mohanty	…… Appellant
	- Versus-
State of Odisha & others	…… Respondents
For Appellant	: M/s. Dr. J.K.Lenka, P.K.Behera, advocates.
For Respondents	: M/s. S.K.Das, S.K.Mishra, P.K.Behera,advocates. M/s. S.Pattnaik, R.K.Samal,advs. Mr. B.Senapati, A.G.A.

¶5

¶6

PRESENT:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE D.DASH

¶8

Date of hearing-25.10.2016 : Date of judgment- 02.12.2016

¶9

This appeal has been filed under section 24-C of Odisha Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter in short call as “the Education Act”) challenging an 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.

¶10

Facts necessary for the purpose may be stated as under:

¶11

¶12

The appellant claims to have joined against the

¶13

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, Haladia and release of Block Grant against the said post therefore is stated to be justified.

¶14

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.

¶15

¶16

The prayer made in the G.I.A. application are the

¶17

followings:

¶18

“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;

¶19

b) declare that the applicant is entitled to be adjusted against 1^st admissible post of +2 wing and the respondent no.7(Nirod Kuamr Dash) should have been adjusted against 1^st 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;

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

d) pass any order/direction as deemed fit and proper in

¶23

the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶24

Fact remains that Haladia 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. Haladia 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 Haladia 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. Therefore, the appellant can lay no claim over the Haladia Degree College.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

In this G.I.A. Case No.13 of 2014, the appellant is not questioning the resolution dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Governing Body of the college. He has now prayed before the Tribunal for adjustment of respondent no.7 (Sri Nirod Kumar Dash) 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

¶29

¶30

appellant looking at the prayers made in the application filed before the Tribunal.

¶31

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.

¶32

The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶33

…………………. D. Dash, J.

¶34

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated, the 2^nd December, 2016/Himansu

¶35

Santosh Ku.Mohanty v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Ku.Mohanty v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dada Pulla Rao Vs State of Orissa

Menaka Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Ajay Behera Vs State of Orissa

Srikanta Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa

Siba Mahanta Vs State of Orissa

Ranjan Ku.Panigrahi Vs Parsuram Mohapatra