Sitaram Khamari vs State Of Odisha And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 11336 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         WPC (OAC) No. 745 of 2000

            Sitaram Khamari                    ....                             Petitioner
                                                            Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
                                                -Versus -
            State of Odisha and Ors.           ....                       Opp. Parties
                                                                                   .
                                                                       State Counsel


                    CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                        ORDER

05.11.2021

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

2. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 16.12.1999 under Annexure-7, by which the grievance made by the petitioner has been rejected in compliance of the order dated 18.03.1999 passed in OJC No. 843 of 1999.

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

5. 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.

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, this Court is not inclined to interfere with order impugned.

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

(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge GDS