Dismissed

Mamata Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC3 Jul 2024WA/900/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa dismissed an intra-Court appeal challenging a Single Judge's order rejecting the appellant's claim for service regularization. The court held that the appellant's appointment was invalid as it was made by the Managing Committee without following the selection procedure mandated by Section 7-B of the Odisha Education Act, 1969.

What did the court decide?

The intra-Court appeal was dismissed as it had no merit.

Mamata Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WA No.900 of 2023

¶3

Smt. Mamata Sahoo

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Respondents Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A.

¶9

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

03.07.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

The appellant in the present intra-Court appeal has put to challenge an order dated 24.08.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC (OA) No.50 of 2018.

¶16

In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as an Additional Section Teacher, Hindi (Kovida) ClassVII-B on 27.09.1990 by the Managing Committee of Tulasipur M.E. School, Nimapara. The said School was an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short, “the Act”). The School was later taken over by the State Government on 01.04.1991. The service of the appellant was not approved and accordingly not taken over mainly on the ground that her appointment was not in accordance with Section 7-B of the Act which prescribes that every private educational institution shall appoint qualified teachers and non-

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

teaching staff by making selection in accordance with the procedure and criteria prescribed by the State Government.

¶19

The appellant was appointed by the Managing Committee, as has been noticed above. The appellant had approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (in short, “the Tribunal”) aggrieved by non-inclusion of her name as approved Teachers of the School giving rise to OA No.3417(C) of 2003. The said application was disposed of with a direction to consider the appellant’s case by passing a reasoned order. The appellant’s case was rejected by an order dated 30.05.2015, assailing which the appellant filed another original application giving rise to OA No.1824 (C) of 2015. The Tribunal again directed the Government to reconsider the appellant’s grievance. The appellant’s claim was again rejected by an order dated 10.11.2017 holding that the case of another teacher, namely, Chaturbhuja Patra, whose services were approved, stood on a different footing as he had been appointed prior to coming into force of the Ordinance dated 14.08.1989 amending the Act. The order dated 10.11.2017 came to be assailed by the appellant by filing yet another original application before the Tribunal giving rise to OA No.50 of 2018. Consequent upon abolition of the Tribunal, the said original application stood transferred to this Court and came to be registered as WPC (OA) No.50 of 2018.

¶20

It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant took a specific plea that her case was on similar footing with said Chaturbhuja Patra, an Additional Section Teacher, Class-VI-B of Lathipada U.P. School under the

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

D.I. of Schools, Nayagarh who was appointed on 07.10.1988 and subsequently, his service was taken over, being approved by the authority. Learned Single Judge has also noted the fact that the appellant’s claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant’s case was distinguishable from the case of said Chaturbhuja Patra on the ground that his date of appointment was prior to coming into force of the Ordinance dated 14.08.1989.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that after insertion of Section 7-B in the Act, no Rules were framed and the Orissa Education (Selection Board for the State) Rules, 1992 (in short, “the Rules of 1992”) came to be framed only in 1992. In accordance with the Rules of 1992, the appointments were to be made based on the recommendation of the Selection Board. He submits that before insertion of Section 7-B in the Act, the earlier rules laying down the procedure for appointment as Additional Class Teacher were applicable. He contends that the said Rules were applicable despite insertion of Section 7-B of the Act in the year 1989.

¶24

We do not find any force in the said submission on behalf of the appellant.

¶25

Section 7-B of the Act reads as under:

¶26

“7-B (1) The State Government or any officer or authority authorized by it may prescribe the qualifications to be possessed by persons for appointment as teachers including the norms relating to the requirement of such teachers in different categories of private educational institutions.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

(2) Every private educational institution shall, in order to be recognized by the State Government, appoint the required number of qualified teachers as provided in sub-section (1) from out of the list of candidates selected for this purpose by the Selection Board for the State or the concerned district, as the case may be, constituted under sub-section (2) of section 10 in the prescribed manner.”

¶29

The Act in no uncertain terms prescribes that the private educational institution shall in order to be recognized by the State Government appoint required number of qualified teachers as provided in Sub-Section (1) from out of the list of candidates selected for this purpose by a selection board or the State or the concerned District, as the case may be, constituted under SubSection (2) of Section 10 in the prescribed manner.

¶30

As the appellant was appointed by the Managing Committee after coming into force of Section 7-B of the Act and not in accordance with the statutory provision under Section 7-B of the Act and said Chaturbhuja Patra had been appointed on 07.10.1988, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

This appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

¶33

Chief Justice

¶34

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶35

S.K. Guin/P.A.

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Jul-2024 10:16:54

Mamata Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamata Sahoo v. State of Odisha

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

Prakash Ch. Swain Vs Lt.Col.Sanjay K.Josi

State Vs Surendra Ku.Nayak

Pravati Behera Vs Anil Ku.Samal

State of Odisha Vs Junej Kumar Sethi

Nucleus Institute of Medical Science Vs Commissioner-Cum-Secy, Dept. of Health and Family Welfare

Rajat Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha