Orissa High Court
Fakir Charan Sankhua vs State Of Orissa & Others on 18 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO NO.474 OF 2011
In the matter of an application under Section
24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969.
..................
Fakir Charan Sankhua .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Orissa & Others .... Respondents
For Appellant :M/s. S.C. Devdas, Advocate
For Respondents :M/s. S.K.Samal,
Additional Govt. Advocate
(for Respondent Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
(for Respondent No.5)
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 23.03.2023 and Date of Order: 18.04.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. This appeal has been
filed challenging the judgment dated 02.08.2011 passed by
the learned State Education Tribunal (hereinafter after
called <The Tribunal=) in GIA Case No.275 of 2009 under
Annexure-9.
// 2 //
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant after facing due process of selection was
appointed as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political
Science in Boula College, Soso vide Office Order dated
20.11.1991 under Annexure-1.
2.1. It is contended that while seeking concurrence of
extension of seats and opening of new optional subjects in
the College vide letter dated 22.10.1992 in Annexure-2,, the
name of the appellant was reflected as against the post of
Lecturer in Political Science with date of joining as
01.07.1992 with the post being eligible for such creation
w.e.f 01.08.1988.
2.2. The college in question when was notified and
became eligible to receive grant-in-aid w.e.f 01.06.1994 as
per grant-in-aid order 1994, the College while submitting
the particulars of the teaching and non -teaching staffs of
the College, when reflected the name of the private
Respondent No.5 as against 1st the post of Lecturer in
Political Science in Annexure-3, the appellant ventilated his
grievance before the governing body of the College with
regard to recommendation of the name of Respondent No.5
for his approval as against the 1st post of Lecturer in
Political Science.
// 3 //
2.3. As no action was taken by the Opp. Parties, to
consider the grievance of the appellant, the appellant seeking
approval of his appointment as against the 1st post of
Lecturer in Political Science approached this Court in OJC
No.845 of 1999. The appellant also prayed for quashing of
the illegal recommendation made in favour of Respondent
No.5.
2.4. During pendency of the matter before this Court in
OJC No.845 of 1999, Sub-Collector cum-President of the
Governing body on the basis of the representation made by
the appellant conducted an enquiry and submitted his
enquiry report vide Annexure-4 series. In the said report, the
then Sub-Collector directed the Principal of the College to
restrict the entry of Respondent No.5 to the College as he is a
stranger and that he is creating disturbance inside the
college premises. It is also contended that the then Principal
of the College by filing an application for intervention in OJC
No.845 of 1999 under Annexure-6 also brought to the notice
of this Court the report submitted by the Sub-Collector cum-
President of the Governing body. In the said application, the
Principal of the College also denied the appointment of
Respondent No.5 as against the 1st post of Lecturer in
Political Science. This Court after hearing the parties
// 4 //
concerned and vide order dated 03.07.2007, disposed of the
matter with a direction on Respondent No.1 to conduct an
enquiry and to determine the claim of the appellant.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.07.2007,
the appellant made a detailed representation before Opp.
Party No.1 on 03.08.2007. But it is contended that Opp.
Party No.1 without issuing any notice to the appellant and
without giving an opportunity of hearing, basing on the
records produced by the Principal of the College, passed an
order on 26.09.2008 under Annexure-7 with the following
finding :
4. The College authorities failed to
produce the original records in support of the
claim of the petitioner for release of grant-in-aid in
his favour. Besides, the claim of the petitioner
that he is working as lecturer in Pol. Science
against the 1st in the College has not been
established as per the report submitted by the
Principal of the College. The Principal has
reported that the special officer appointed for the
purpose of grant-in-aid has recommended the
name of Sri Jagabandhu Mishra against the 1st of
lecturer in Pol. Science to release grant-in-aid in
his favour.=
2.5. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated
26.09.2008 so passed by the Respondent No.1 under
Annexure-9, approached the Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.275
of 2009, but the Tribunal without proper appreciation of
the claim of the appellant vis-à-vis the documents filed by
the appellant as well as Respondent No.5, dismissed the
// 5 //
G.I.A Case vide the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2011
under Annexure-9. The appellant being aggrieved by the
said judgment is before this Court in the present appeal.
2.6. It is contended that the Tribunal only relying on
the finding of the Respondent No.1 in its order dated
26.09.2008 under Annexure-7 rejected the appellant's
claim for his approval as against the 1st post of Lecturer in
Political Science vide the impugned judgment dated
02.08.2011 under Annexure-9.
2.7. It is also contended that though the Tribunal
vide the impugned judgment denied the claim of the
appellant for his approval as against the 1st post of Lecturer
in Political Science, but with regard to the claim of
appointment of Respondent No.5 (Opp. Party No.4 in G.I.A
Case) observed that it requires verification of the
appropriate authority for the purpose of sanction of grant-
in-aid. It is however contended that the private Respondent
No.5 though claimed to have been appointed as against the
1st post of Lecturer in Political Science vide order dated
25.08.1987, but as revealed from the letter dated
22.02.2010 issued by the Sub-Collector under Annexure-
10, Respondent No.5 was terminated from the College vide
Resolution dated 26.12.2003. It is also contended that the
// 6 //
Sub-Collector, Anandapur and the President of the
Governing body also found that the appointment of Private
Respondent No.5 is a forged one.
2.8. Mr. S.C. Devdash, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant contended that initially one Soubhagyalaxmi
Kar was appointed as against the 1st post of Lecturer in
Political Science in the year 1986. When Smt. Kar resigned
from the said post, one Amulya Mohanty was appointed as
against first post in the year 1987. But, Sri Amulya
Mohanty when resigned from the said post, during the year
1987, the 1st post of Lecturer in Political Science remained
vacant till the appellant was appointed vide order dated
20.11.1991 under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended
that since Private Respondent No.5 was never appointed as
against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political Science, the
Tribunal only relying on the order passed by Respondent
No.1 on 26.09.20098 should not have rejected the claim of
the appellant for his approval as against the said post.
Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned judgment is
not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference
of this Court.
3. Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for
the private Respondent No.5 on the other hand made his
// 7 //
submission basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed by the respondent before the Tribunal as
Opp. Party No.4.
3.1. It is contended that pursuant to an
advertisement issued by the College on 01.08.1987,
Respondent No.5 made his application for the 1st post of
Lecturer in Political Science and vide letter dated
08.08.1987, Respondent No.5 was directed to attend the
interview scheduled to be held on 23.08.1987 vide
Annexure-A/4 to the counter filed before the Tribunal in
G.I.A Case No.275 of 2009. The Respondent No.5 on being
duly selected was issued with the order of appointment
vide order dated 25.08.1987 under Annexure-B/4 to the
counter in the GIA case. On receipt of the order of
appointment, Respondent No.5 joined as a Lecturer in
Political Science on 25.08.1987. The College when became
eligible to receive grant-in-aid as per grant-in-aid order
1994, proposal was submitted by the Principal of the
College vide Annexure-G/4. In the said proposal, the name
of the Respondent No.5 was indicated as against the 1st
post of Lecturer in Political Science with the date of
appointment as 25.08.1987.
// 8 //
3.2. When dispute arose with regard to the
appointment and continuance of the appellant as well as
Respondent No.5 as against the 1st post of Lecturer in
Political Science, Government-Respondent No.1 directed
Principal, NC College, Jajpur, to cause an enquiry vide
letter dated 11.09.1998. Pursuant to the said direction,
Principal NC College, Jajpur caused an enquiry and
submitted his report on 14.10.1998 vide Annexure-E/4. In
the said report, Principal NC College, Jajpur observed that
grant-in-aid can only be released as against the 1st post
and approval to the subsequent post does not arise at this
point. While holding so, the name of Respondent No.5 was
recommended for release of grant-in-aid. The relevant
recommendation made in favour of Respondent No.5 is
reproduced hereunder:
1. 1st post of Lecturer in Pol. Sc.
<SriJagabandhu Mishra, D.O.B-02.7.61 passed
B.A from U.U. during 1982 having 343/900 to
38.1% of marks in aggregate and M.A in Pol. Sc.
From U.U during 1984 having 472/800 i.e. 59% of
marks, joined the college on 25.8.87. He is
qualified to hold the post w.e.f 06.10.1989.
His predecessor, Miss Soubhagya Laxmi
Kar D.O.B. 26.7.60 passed B.A with 2nd class
Hons with distination during 1980 and M.A in Pol.
Sc. From U.U during 1982 having 464/800 i.e.
58% of marks, joined the college on 01.08.1986
and was relived on 24.08.87 on resignation.
Sri Mishra is eligible to receive 2/3rd grant-in-aid
w.e.f 1.6.94.=
// 9 //
3.3. On receipt of the enquiry report vide Annexure-
E/4, Respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 18.11.1998
recommended the case of the Respondent No.5 for his
approval as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political
Science with release of grant-in-aid @ 2/3rd w.e.f
01.06.1996 and full salary cost from 1.6.1996. Mr. Das
contended that in the report submitted by the Director on
18.11.1998, one Soubhagyalaxmi Kar was initially
appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science where she
joined on 01.06.1986. Subsequent to her resignation which
was accepted on 24.08.1987, fresh selection process was
initiated and Respondent No.5 on being duly selected was
appointed as against the said post vide order dated
25.08.1987 under Annexure-B/4.
3.4. In spite of such recommendation made by the
Director when the Dy. Secretary to Government in
Department of Higher Education, raised objection with
regard to sanction and release of grant-in-aid in favour of
Respondent No.5 with the plea that his name has been
entered in the proposal by handwriting, direction was
issued for production of all records before him for further
verification vide letter dated 02.12.1998 under Annexure-
G/4. On receipt of such direction so issued vide letter
// 10 //
dated 02.12.1998, the Principal of the College submitted all
the documents of the institution vide letter dated
04.12.1998 under Annexure-H/4.
3.5. In the said letter, the Principal requested for
approval of the services of Respondent No.5 as against the
1st post of Lecturer in Political Science and consequential
release of grant-in-aid in his favour. It is contended by Mr.
S.K. Das that in spite of such recommendation, when the
services of Respondent No.5 was not approved, he
approached this Court in OJC No.5448 of 1999. The said
matter was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
07.05.2001 with a direction on Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to
consider his claim for the purpose of approval and payment
of grant-in-aid under Grant-in-aid order, 1994. But due to
the pendency of the Writ Petition in OJC No.845 of 1999 so
filed by the appellant, no further action was taken
pursuant to the order passed on 07.05.2001. However, it is
contended that in OJC No.845 of 1999, Respondent Nos.1
& 2 filed counter affidavit vide Annexure-K/4 and in the
said counter, the appointment of the present Respondent
No.5 was admitted. The stand taken by Respondent Nos.1
& 2 in para 5 of the counter filed in OJC No.845 of 1999, is
reproduced hereunder:
// 11 //
<5. That in reply to the averments made in para-5 to 10
of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner9s
college was eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1994
as per Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and now the college has been
notified as an aided educational institution with effect from
1.6.1994 vide Govt. Notification No.16063/ME dt.17.3.99. The
college authorities had submitted the proposal in application from
8A9 on 28.2.1995 to Opp. Party No.2 wherein particulars of each of
the staff appointed in the college have been indicated. The name of
the petitioner, P.C. Sankhua does not find place against 1 st post of
Lecturer in Political Science in the said staff particulars which has
been submitted by then Secretary of the College. The said staff
particular submitted by the Secretary of the College is annexed
herewith as Annexure-A/2. The name of the predecessor
Soubhagya Laxmi Kar and Opp. Party No.4 Sri Jagabandu Mishra
have reflected as Lecturer in Political Science (1st Post) in the said
staff particular list. Hence, it is construed that the petitoner has not
been appointed against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political Science of
the said college.
The Governing Body of the College filed OJC No.1930 of 1996
praying for sanction of Grant-in-aid in favour of the college. This
Hon9ble Court in their order dt.8.4.96 directed the Opp. Party No.2
to finalize the case. In spite of best efforts, the original relevant
records pertaining to appointment of staff of the college Governing
Body Resolution Book etc. were not produced by the college
authorities for verification for the purpose of sanction of grant-in-aid
to the college and as a result of order s of this Hon9ble Court could
not be implemented in time. The Governing Body of the college filed
Contempt petition bearing CONTC No.357 of 96 (arising out of OJC
No.1930/96) complaining non-compliance of the said order of the
Hon9ble Court. This Hon9ble Court in their order dt.30.6.97
dismissed the case for default due to non-appearance of the
petitioner. Again Opp. Party No.2 requested to the Special Officer,
Boula College, Soso and Principal N.C. College in his letter
dt.11.09.1998 to furnish the relevant records in original for
verification for sanction of Grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.94 in
favour of the eligible and admissible staff of the college. The
records submitted by the Special Officers, Boula College and
Principal, N.C. College, Jajpur vide Letter No.267 dt.14.10.98, the
copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure-B/2, though
Principal-in-Charge of the college with reference to form 8A9
application submitted by the then Secretary and President of the
Governing Body of the college were verified by the Opp. Party NO.2
for the purpose of sanction of Grant-in-aid Orders, 1994. In the
said letter dt.14.10.98 of the Special Officer, Boula College and
Principal, N.C. College, Jajpur the staff position of different teaching
and non-teaching post has been furnished wherein the name of the
petitioner Sri F.C. Sankhua, Lecturer in Political Science does not
find place. The name of the predecessor Soubhagya Laxmi Kar and
Opp. Party No.4 Sri Jagabandhu Mishra have been reflected
against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political Science. So it is clear
that the petitioner Sri F.C. Sankhua has not been appointed against
1st post of Lecturer in Political Science at any point of time. Hence,
his claim for sanction of Grant-in-aid in his favour has not been
taken congnizance of this Opp. Party No.2.=
3.6. Mr. S.K. Das further contended that even though
the appellant claims himself to be appointed vide order
dated 20.11.1991 under Annexure-1, but the said order
// 12 //
was never issued by the College. The order was only
communicated vide Memo No.590 but without indicating
the date of such communication. It is also contended that
as per the Dak despatch Register of the College Memo
No.590 dated 20.11.1991 was never issued in favour of
appellant or any body else. It is contended that no such
appointment order was issued in favour of the appellant on
20.11.1991, as alleged. On the contrary, as reflected from
the Issue Register of the College, the Respondent No.5 was
issued with letter No.278 dated 08.08,1987 to appear in the
interview and the consequential appointment order issued
vide letter No.318 dated 25.08.1987 is also reflected in the
Issue Register.
3.7. Mr. S.K. Das also contended that Respondent
No.5 when was supplied with the information by the
authorities of Utkal University under the R.T.I. Act, it came
to the knowledge of Respondent No.5 that the appellant has
been issued with another office order vide Memo No.39
dated 25.07.1992 showing his appointment as against the
post of Lecturer in Political Science in the +3 wing of the
college.
3.8. Making all these submissions, Mr. S.K Das, learned
counsel contended that since the Respondent No.5 was
// 13 //
duly appointed after facing due recruitment process as
against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political Science vide
Office Order dated 25.08.1987, the services of the
Respondent No.5 is required to be approved as against the
1st post of Lecturer in Political Science with release of
consequential grant-in-aid in his favour.
3.9. Mr. S.K. Das, however fairly contended that in
the meantime, Respondent No.5 since has already retired
from the service on attaining the age of superannuation,
Respondent No.5 will only be entitled to get the benefit of
grant-in-aid from the date of his approval i.e. 01.06.1994
till he retires from his service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.07.2021. But the Tribunal never
take into consideration the stand taken by Respondent
No.5(Opp. Party No.4 before the Tribunal) in its proper
perspective and while declining the claim of the appellant
only observed that the appointment and approval of
Respondent No.5 requires further consideration by
Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
4. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on
the other hand contended that since the appellant as well
as Respondent No.5 claim as against the 1st post of
Lecturer in Political Science, no illegality has been
// 14 //
committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the
applicant as well as Respondent No.5 by directing the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for proper verification of the
documents for the purpose of release of grant-in-aid in
favour of Respondent No.5.
5. Even though none appeared for the Respondent
No.3, but this Court after going through the counter filed
by Respondent No.3, found that Respondent No.3 has
admitted the appointment of Respondent No.5 as against
the 1st post of Lecturer of Political Science on 25.08.1987
and also the appointment of the appellant vide order dated
20.11.1991. It is also admitted that the name of
Respondent No.5 was recommended for his approval as
against the post of Lecturer in Political Science 1st post by
the Director vide his letter dated 18.11.1998 under
Annexure-A/3 to the counter.
6. I have heard Mr. Soubhagya Chandra Devdas,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. S.K.
Samal, learned Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 & Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.5. None appeared in
spite of appearance on behalf of Respondent No.3.
// 15 //
On the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
the matter was taken up for hearing at the stage of
admission and disposed of by the present order.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials available on record, this
Court finds that as against the 1st post of Lecturer in
Political Science, the Respondent No.5 as well as the
appellants are raising their claim. Respondent No.5 raised
his claim basing on the order of appointment issued on
25.08.1987 under Annexure-B/4. From the records, it is
found that initially one Subhagyalaxmi Kar was appointed
as against the 1st Post of Lecturer in Political Science. When
she resigned from the post which was accepted on
24.08.1987, basing on the advertisement issued by the
College, Respondent No.5 was asked to appear the
interview vide letter dated 08.08.1987 under Annexure-
A/4. The Respondent No.5 after facing the interview on
23.08.1987, in terms of Annexure-A/4, was appointed vide
order dated 25.08.1987.
6.1. From the record, it is also found that in the
enquiry report submitted by the Principal NC College,
Jajpur, the name of Respondent No.5 was duly
recommended as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political
// 16 //
Science vide letter dated 28.02.1995 under Annexure-D/4.
The stand taken by the appellant that the name of
Respondent No.5 was inserted in handwriting is not
acceptable as the appellant in support of his appointment
vide order dated 20.11.1991 has not produced any
document showing inter alia that he was appointed as
against the said post by facing due selection process. The
further stand taken by the appellant that the post of
Lecturer in Political Science after the resignation of 1st
incumbent Smt. Soubhagyalaxmi Kar in the year 1987,
remained vacant till 1991 is not acceptable as the college in
absence of any lecturer in Political Science cannot function
during the period from 1987 to 1991. It is found from the
record that Respondent No.5 after the resignation of Smt.
Soubhagyalaxmi Kar was appointed as against the 1st post
of Lecturer vide order dated 25.8.1987.
6.2. Therefore, this Court taking into account the
materials available on record is of the view of this Court
that the Tribunal though has not committed any illegality
or irregularity in refusing the prayer made by the appellant
for approval of his services but while doing so the Tribunal
should have directed for approval of the services of
Respondent No.5 as against the post of Lecturer in Political
// 17 //
Science instead of directing for further verification of the
records. While holding so, this Court directs Respondent
Nos.1 & 2 to approve the services of Respondent No.5 as
against the 1st post of Lecturer in Political Science and
release grant-in-aid in his favour as recommended by the
Director vide letter dated 08.11.1998. Since it is submitted
at the Bar that the Respondent No.5 has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f 31.03.2021,
respondents No.5 shall be released with the grant-in-aid for
the period from 01.06.1994 till he attain the age of
superannuation i.e 31.7.2021. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 may
consider the claim of the appellant for his approval w.e.f
01.08.2021 as against the said post and allow him to get
the benefit of grant-in-aid from the said date, if he is
otherwise eligible.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 18th April, 2023/sangita
