Niranjan Behera Vs State of Odisha

3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging judgment dt.17.12.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.6 of 2014. The aforesaid G.I.A case was filed by the present appellant challenging the order passed by the Director, Higher Education-Respondent No.2 on 11.12.2013 wherein Respondent No.2 held private Respondent No.4 eligible to receive the benefit of Block Grant under G.I.A Order 2008 as against the post of Lecturer in Odia.

¶13

1

¶14

4. It is the case of the appellant that appellant was appointed subsequent to the appointment of private Respondent No.4. But since private Respondent no.4 was appointed as against a non-existent post, appointment of the Appellant is to be taken as the valid appointment made against the 1^st post of Lecturer in Oriya in the college in question.

¶15

4.1. It is contended that even though Appellant was duly appointed after the post became admissible, but taking into account the appointment of private Respondent no.4 having been made earlier though against a non-existent post, Respondent No.2 vide order dt.11.12.2013 when directed for approval of the services of Respondent no.4 as against the post of Lecturer in Odia, the same was challenged by the present Appellant before the Tribunal by filing G.I.A Case No.6 of 2014.

¶16

4.2. It is contended that during pendency of the matter, though the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the Respondents not to approve the services of Respondent No.4, but on the face of such interim order, not only the services of Respondent no.4 was approved, but also the benefit of Grant-in-Aid was extended in her favour under G.I.A Order, 2008.

¶17

4.3. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that since Respondent No.4 was appointed though earlier than the appointment of Appellant against a non-existent post, appointment of the Appellant in the year 2003 is to be taken as the valid appointment to have been made as against the post in question. But the said fact was not properly appreciated either by the Director

¶18

2

¶19

who passed the order on 11.12.2013 or by the Tribunal, when the order passed by the Director was challenged in G.I.A Case No.6 of 2014. It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

¶20

5. Mr. D. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body-Respondent No.3 on the other hand contended that even though Appellant was appointed as contended in the year 2003, but since he is not coming to the college w.e.f from 2009, taking into account the appointment of private Respondent No.4 as against the said post, her claim was not only recommended for approval as against the 1^st post of Lecturer in Oriya, but also Respondent No.2-Director after due consideration of the claim of the present Appellant vis-a-vis Respondent No.4, passed the order on 11.12.2013, directing for approval of the services of the Respondent No.4. 5.1. It is contended that in terms of order dt.11.12.2013, services of Respondent No.4 has been duly approved and she is in receipt of grant-in-aid under G.I.A Order 2008. It is contended that since Appellant with effect from the year 2009 is not coming to the college he has no claim to get his services approved as against the post in question. It is accordingly contended that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. 6. Mr. D.K.Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 made similar submission as like the submission made by Mr.D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3.

¶21

3

¶22

7. To the stand taken by the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 & 4, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the year 2009 when the Appellant was prevented from discharging his duty the matter was raised before Respondent No.2 on different occasion. But Respondent No.2 did not take any action on such grievance of the appellant so made vide Annexure-12 series to the additional affidavit filed before this Court today.

¶23

7.1. It is contended that since appellant was not allowed to discharge his duty w.e.f 2009, even though he was appointed as against a substantive post after the post became admissible, services of Respondent No.4 could not have been approved during pendency of the matter before the Tribunal and on the face of the interim order passed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds hat the private Respondent NO.4 was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Odia, vide order dt.30.08.1995 where she joined on 31.08.1995. The present appellant was appointed on 16.09.2003 where he joined on 18.09.2003. But the fact which is not disputed is that the appellant is not discharging his duty from the year 2009. If the appellant was not allowed to discharge his duty from the year 2009 which amounts to termination, as per the considered view of this Court, the grievance made by the Appellant before the Director should have been brought to a logical end.

¶24

8.1. But on the face of the approaches made by the appellant time and again before the Director under

¶25

4

¶26

Annexure-12 series , no action was taken and in the meantime an order was passed by the DirectorRespondent No.2 to approve the services of Respondent No.4 vide order dt.11.12.2023. The Appellant accordingly challenged the order dt.11.12.2013 before the Tribunal by filling the GIA case in question.

¶27

8.2. Since it is not disputed that appellant is not continuing and/or prevented from discharging his duty from the year 2009, which amounts to termination, as per the considered view of this Court the appellant should have prosecuted the matter, as provided under law challenging such action of the Governing Body, when Respondent No.2 did not take any action on the grievance raised under Annexure-12 series.

¶28

8.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, grants liberty to the Appellant to make a fresh application before Respondent No.2 challenging the action of the Governing Body in not allowing him to discharge his duty from the year 2009 by enclosing the allegations made in that regard so enclosed vide Annexure-12 series to the additional affidavit.

¶29

8.4. It is observed that if any fresh application is moved before Respondent No.2 by enclosing the earlier applications challenging the action of the Governing BodyRespondent No.3, Opp. Party No.2 shall take a lawful decision on the same by giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant and Respondent Nos.3 & 4. The Respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the claim of the Appellant to be made within a period of 4

¶30

5

¶31

(four) months from the date of receipt of the application. In order to avoid delay, appellant, Respondent NO.3 and Respondent No.4 are directed to appear before the Director on 27.12.2024, Appellant will file the application as directed on 27.12.2024 enclosing the applications available under Annexure-12 series. On such appearance with filing of the application, Respondent No.2 shall take up the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law within the period as directed. It is however observed that none of the parties will be allowed any adjournment by Respondent No.2. All of them will cooperate for disposal of the matter within the time stipulated by this Court. It is further observed that approval of the services of Respondent No.4 as against the post of Lecturer in Odia shall be subject to final outcome of the order to be passed by the Director.

¶32

The FAO accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions.

¶33

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶34

sangita

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticatioin of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tacl Date: 16-Dec-2024 17:21:17

¶37

6

Niranjan Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tapaswini Hati Vs Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan, Bbsr

Tapaswini Besan Vs Nabin Ku.Adwani

Pankajini Das Vs Dipak Kar

Madhusmita Samal Vs State of Orissa

State of Odisha Vs Madhusmita Samal

Swarnaprava Sahu Vs State of Odisha