Prasana Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 12524 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         WPC (OAC) No. 2788 of 2003

            Prasana Kumar Panda                 ....                                Petitioner
                                                              Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate
                                                 -Versus -
            State of Odisha and Ors.            ....                         Opp. Parties
                                                                                      .
                                                                       Mr. B. Mohanty,
                                                     Standing Counsel for S&ME Deptt.

                    CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                        ORDER

06.12.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner as against the vacant post of Science Teacher/ Section Teacher from the date of joining with all other service benefits, within a stipulated time.

4. Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the petitioner was appointed as Additional Teacher, but his post was not approved.

5. Mr. B. Mohanty, 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.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Teacher by the managing committee of the school in question. 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, the relief sought cannot be granted.

7. For the above reasons, the writ partition merits no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge GDS