Orissa High Court
Biren Ku. Paul vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.338 of 2018
Biren Ku. Paul .... Appellant
Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
(Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.04.2023
Order No
22. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the
Respondents. In spite of appearance nobody is there on behalf of
Respondent No. 3.
3. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment
dtd.02.02.2018 passed by the State Education Tribunal (hereinafter
called as <the Tribunal=) in GIA Case No. 152 of 2010.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that seeking a
direction on the Respondent No. 2 to consider and recommend the
case of the Appellant to the Govt. for the purpose of release of
grant-in-aid in his favour in terms of the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994,
the GIA case was filed. It is contended that in the GIA case,
Respondent No. 2 though filed a counter, but nobody entered
appearance on behalf of the Governing body in spite of service of
// 2 //
notice. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that
the Appellant was appointed as a Lecturer on adhoc basis vide order
dtd.22.12.1992 under Annexure-1. Subsequently, vide order
dtd.29.09.1993 under Annexure-3 the Appellant was appointed as a
Lecturer in English on regular basis. Pursuant to the order the
Appellant joined on 29.09.1993 under Annexure-4. It is contended
that even though the appointment of the Appellant was made taking
into account the yard stick prevalent at the relevant point of time,
but when his services was not approved for the purpose of release
of grant-in-aid in terms of GIA Order, 1994, he moved the Tribunal
in aforesaid GIA case No. 152 of 2010. But the Tribunal without
proper appreciation of the materials produced before him, rejected
the same vide the impugned Judgment dtd.2nd February, 2018.
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned AGA on the other hand on the other
hand contended that even though the Appellant was appointed on
adhoc basis vide order dtd.22.12.1992 and subsequently on regular
basis vide order dtd.29.09.1993, but since the Grant-in-aid Order,
1994 is already repealed by the time the Appellant made the claim,
the Appellant cannot get the benefit of the Grant-in-aid order, 1994.
It is accordingly contended that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the
claim.
6. This Court after going through the impugned Judgment, finds
that even though the Appellant filed the GIA Case seeking his
approval as against the post of Lecturer in English for the purpose
of Grant-in-aid in terms of G.I.A. order, 1994, but the Tribunal has
considered the matter taking into account the provision of the
Validation Act, 1998. It is never the case of the Appellant and no
prayer was also made to validate the appointment of the Appellant
// 3 //
in terms of the Validation Act, 1998. Since it is found from the
impugned order that the Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong basis
and accordingly rejected the claim, this Court is inclined to quash
the impugned Judgment on that ground only. While quashing the
same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.
It is directed that the Tribunal shall give opportunity of hearing to
all concerned and consider the prayer as made by the Appellant in
the GIA case in accordance with law. This Court directs the
Tribunal to take a fresh decision by giving opportunity of hearing to
all concerned within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt
of this order. The Tribunal is further directed to issue fresh notice
on the Governing Body for its appearance and in spite of due
service of notice, if the Governing body does not appear, the
Tribunal will be free to proceed with the matter in accordance with
law.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
