Orissa High Court
Subash Chandra Khuntia vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14060 of 2018
Subash Chandra Khuntia ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. D. Routray, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
ORDER
12.04.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 01.06.2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2381 (C) of 2011
and to direct the opposite parties to give him promotion to the post
of Headmaster in UP (ME) School against the vacancy caused at
least with effect from 24.02.2011 and to give all financial benefits
in the Headmaster scale and revise the pension accordingly.
4. Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher on
10.08.1970 in U.P (M.E) School, Mahakali Vidya Pitha, Pailo in
the district of Kendrapada. He completed B.Ed. qualification on
10.12.1983 and thereafter he was eligible for promotion to the post
of Headmaster but he was not promoted. The school was taken
over by the Government with effect from 01.04.1991. The State
Government issued a circular wherein decision was taken that
promotion to the post of Headmaster, U.P (M.E) School/UGME
school against the vacancies existed prior to 12.08.1997 shall be
governed by the Government resolution dated 02.12.1991. The
above circular of the Government was communicated by the
Director to all D.I. of Schools as well as Inspector of Schools,
including present opposite parties 3 and 4. But the petitioner was
not extended with promotion. Therefore, he approached the
Tribunal. The Tribunal after due adjudication rejected the claim of
the petitioner. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition
challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate
contended that there is no dispute that the petitioner was
continuing as Assistant Teacher under D.I of Schools, Kendrapara.
After inviting objection to the provisional gradation list of
Assistant Teacher, the final gradation list was prepared on
21.12.2010 wherein the name of the applicant finds place at serial
No.1. The proceeding of the District Promotion Committee
meeting held on 24.02.2011 reveals that in the D.P.C. the
Inspector of Schools, Kendrapada was the Chairman and D.I. of
Schools, Kendrapada was the Member-Secretary and D.I. of
Schools Pattamundai was a Member. The D.P.C. resolution
reveals that a common gradation list of both the education district
was prepared at revenue district level. Objections were invited
from above category of teachers and final gradation list was
prepared. As regards promotion of Schools having B.Ed. Teacher
of Primary and U.G.M.E qualification to the post of Headmaster
against vacancy existing prior to 12.08.1997, the D.I. of Schools
Pattamundai had prepared gradation list. The D.I. of Schools,
Kendrapada had not prepared the gradation list of Primary and
U.G.M.E Schools teachers as there was no vacant post of
Headmaster of schools in his education district. But for
preparation of a common gradation list of both the education
district at revenue level, it was essential for preparation of a
gradation list of Kendrapada Education district. The D.I. of
Schools, Kendrapada was advised to prepare the gradation list
forthwith to facilitate the preparation of common gradation list.
But a doubt was raised as to whether a senior teacher of one
education district will be eligible for promotion to the post of
Headmaster can be posted against a vacant post of other education
district. Therefore, the Inspector of Schools, Kendrapada Circle
being the Chairman of the D.P.C. was requested to seek necessary
clarification from the Director, Elementary Education Orissa for
early implementation of the judgment of O.A.T. in O.A.
No.609/1994. Even though the DPC was held on 24.02.2011, but
since there was doubt as indicated above, no promotion was
extended to anybody. However on 28.02.2011, the petitioner
retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereby, the
Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is well
justified.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the record, since the DPC was held on 24.02.2011
and the same was not given effect due to the reason as indicated
above and immediately thereafter on 28.02.2011 the petitioner
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation,
therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit as has been
claimed in this writ petition. Thus this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated
01.06.2018 in O.A. No. 2381 (C) of 2011 so as to cause an
interference at this stage. Accordingly the writ petition merits no
consideration and the same stands dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Arun
