Prasanta v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner sought direction to approve her post and extend grant-in-aid benefits. The respondent argued the writ was not maintainable under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act. The Court transferred the matter to the State Education Tribunal for adjudication, allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
What did the court decide?
The writ application shall be transferred to the State Education Tribunal for adjudication under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
O.J.C. NO. 49 of 1997
1
- 04.12.2018
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Samal, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.
The petitioner, by means of this writ application, seeks direction to the opposite parties to approve the post and extend the benefits of the grant-in-aid.
Mr. S. Samal, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department states that the writ application is not maintainable in view of Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that since the petitioner claims for approval of her post and consequential release of grant-in-aid, he may be permitted to agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum.
In view of the aforesaid submission, this writ application be transferred to the State Education Tribunal for adjudication under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act.
………………………… …
GDS
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ application claiming approval of post and grant-in-aid benefits is maintainable under the Orissa Education Act.
Whether the matter should be adjudicated by the appropriate tribunal instead of the High Court.
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to agitate the grievance before the appropriate forum due to Section 24-B.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
School and Mass Education Department
Coram
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court