Sivanand Educational Trust for Social Advancement, Angul Vs State of Odisha

The petitioner is a registered trust and claims that it runs a Post Diploma in Industrial Safety (PDIS) Course. It is the petitioner’s case that it was granted affiliation to run the course with 30 seats in 2011. Since then, the institute has been running the course continuously. It is also the petitioner’s case that it had applied for increasing the intake of trainees/students from 30 to 60.

¶18

An inspection was conducted of the institute on 12.08.2021. The joint inspection team had recommended increasing the intake capacity to 60. Later, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies based on a subsequent inspection conducted. The petitioner was later granted one month’s time to meet the deficiencies pointed out by opposite party No.1.

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

By a communication dated 22.03.2024, the petitioner was informed about the decision of the First Apex Diploma Admission Committee to keep the admission in the said institute in abeyance. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10498 of 2024, assailing the legality of the decision of the First Apex Diploma Admission Committee dated 13.03.2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 13.05.2024 with the following direction and observation:

¶21

“11. Situated thus, having found infirmity in the approach of the authority in taking the decision vide communication dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure~8 to the writ petition), which is bereft of reason for the conclusion arrived at, the opposite party-Director of Technical Education & Training, Odisha is required to revisit, without being influenced by decision already taken.

¶22

12. Finding absence of reasons in the decision of the opposite party-Director of Technical Education & Training, Odisha on the issue of varying with the recommendation of the Expert Committee members and taking a decision to keep in abeyance the admission of 30 students as recommended in the Joint Verification Report, this Court remits the matter to the said authority for a fresh decision.

¶23

13. It goes without saying that while considering the matter afresh, said authority may take into consideration not only the deficiencies pointed out but also the recommendations made in the Joint Verification Report dated 08.02.2023 submitted by the Expert Committee. Having regard to the career of students pursuing Post Diploma Course in Industrial Safety ("PDIS''), it is desired that the authority shall take appropriate decision bearing in mind the legal

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

position discussed supra preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

¶26

14. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the deficiencies pointed out in the Joint Verification Report, which is left open to be decided by the opposite party-Director of Technical Education & Training, Odisha.”

¶27

The petitioner’s representation has been rejected by an order dated 14.08.2024. Noticeably, before that, a joint inspection team had visited the institute for inspection and had given a report that some construction work was going on in the said institute.

¶28

Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailing the decision to keep admission in the institute in abeyance, has submitted that there is no deficiency at all in terms of infrastructure or otherwise and though it can fulfill all the requirements for 60 students, in no case, the opposite parties should have declined to allow intake of 30 students.

¶29

In the light of this Court’s order dated 30.09.2024, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which is there on record.

¶30

Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has drawn our attention to Annexure-12 to the writ petition which contains a recommendation of the experts’ committee. The experts’ committee has recorded reasons for not recommending the institute for admission for the academic session 2024-25 which are as under:

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

“The additional construction/renovation of existing building is under progress.

¶33

Due to renovation work under progress the required practical lab/ classrooms are not ready.

¶34

The faculty salary payment through cashless mode of transaction could not be produced to the team members.”

¶35

It was in the background of the reasons assigned by the experts’ committee as noted above that the petitioner was asked to file an additional affidavit dealing with the points mentioned therein. In the additional affidavit, it has been stated that the faculty members are being paid through cash, and cashless mode of transactions has also been adopted.

¶36

It is the case of the petitioner that the document to show that faculty members are paid through cashless mode of transaction could not be produced before the team members when the inspection was conducted because it was done in a hurry and the petitioner was not knowing about the date of inspection.

¶37

We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision in view of the finding of the experts’ committee that because renovation work was under progress, the required practical labs/ classrooms were not ready and the construction/ renovation of the existing building was also in progress. The academic session being of 2024-25, the reason assigned during an inspection held on 09.07.2024, cannot be said to be baseless.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

Mr. Acharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has attempted to convince this Court that there is no mandatory requirement of making payment to the faculty members through cashless mode only and, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity if the faculty members were paid cash.

¶40

Let, the Secretary, Skill Development and Technical Education Department conduct a separate enquiry into the affairs of the institute, namely, Sivanand Educational Trust for Social Advancement, Ananda Bazaar, Talcher, Angul, more particularly, in relation to the financial transactions in the wake of the stand taken by the institute that the cash is paid to the faculty members against their salaries. The authorities shall be at liberty to take a decision on the point of grant of affiliation or lifting the abeyance order in accordance with law, after conducting an enquiry/ inspection caused by the Secretary, Skill Development and Technical Education Department within ten days.

¶41

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶42

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

¶43

Chief Justice

¶44

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶45

S. Behera

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Oct-2024 13:10:40

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Sivanand Educational Trust for Social Advancement, Angul v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivanand Educational Trust for Social Advancement, Angul 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmidhar Padhi Vs State of Odisha

Jharana Behera Vs Union of India

Statesman Academy of Medical Science,Bbsr Vs the State of Odisha

Suchitra Construction, Balasore Vs State of Odisha

Suchitra Construction, Balasore Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Rout Vs State of Odisha