Orissa High Court
Haris Chandra Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 2 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 2094 of 2016
Haris Chandra Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Satapathy, Advocate
- Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties
Mr. S. Jena,
Standing Counsel for S&ME Dept.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
02.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. B.P. Satapathy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School
& Mass Education Department.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 31.03.2016 under Annexure-1, by which the
grievance made by the petitioner has been rejected in compliance
of the order dated 07.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 21543 of 2015.
Mr. B.P. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that although the petitioner was appointed as
Additional Teacher, but his post was not approved.
Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass
Education Department contended that since the petitioner was
appointed by the Managing Committee of the school itself, in view
of the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa and Ors. v.
Nabin Kumar Beura, 2011 (I) OLR 149, the benefit sought
cannot be admissible to the petitioner and, thereby, the writ
petition is to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was
appointed as an Additional Teacher in Panchayat High School,
Laxminagar, vide resolution no.73 dated 21.12.1991 of the
Managing Committee against the post of Additional Section
Teacher of Class-X-B, pursuant to which he joined on 03.01.1992
and subsequently acquired B.Ed. qualification as an in-service
candidate during the year 1999-2000. The petitioner rendered
service as an Additional Section Teacher up to 23.08.2001.
Subsequently, the school in question was taken over by the
Government w.e.f. 07.06.1994, pursuant to the resolution dated
16.12.1994. There was no correspondence with the higher
authorities to create additional section in the school nor has any
prior permission to appoint any Additional Section Teacher been
obtained by the school authority before appointment of the
petitioner. As per the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969, prior permission is required to fill up the
vacancy in the institution and, as such, in the present case no
prior permission has been taken by the institution for opening of
additional section and, thereby, no post was sanctioned. Similar
question had come up for consideration in Nabin Kumar Beura
(supra), wherein this Court held that the requisite criteria of
obtaining prior approval if not fulfilled, any appointment made by
the Managing Committee is illegal in the eye of law. In view of
such position, since no prior permission was obtained, so far as
petitioner's appointment is concerned, this Court is not inclined
to interfere with order impugned. More so, the petitioner is no
more in employment with effect from 23.08.2001 and in the
meantime more than twenty years have passed.
For all the above reasons, the writ partition merits no
consideration and the same thus stands dismissed.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a
printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par
with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned
advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587,
dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No. 4798
dated 15th April, 2021.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
GDS
JUDGE
