Orissa High Court
Md. Soyeb Akhtar vs State Of Odisha&Ors on 18 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 261 of 2018
Md. Soyeb Akhtar ..... Appellant
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
along with
Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha&Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
18.07.2025
Order No.10
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Appellant along with Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel and Mr. P.K.
Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp.
Parties.
3. Memo containing the workload as against the post of Lecturer in
English as per 1983 yardstick so produced in Court be kept in record.
4. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging judgment
dtd.08.02.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short
Tribunal) in GIA Case No. 581 of 2013 under Annexure-8. Vide the
said judgment claim of the Appellant for approval of his services
under the Validation Act was rejected.
5. It is the case of the Appellant that Appellant was appointed in
Pipili Junior College as against the 4th Post of Lecturer in English
vide order dtd.15.06.1991. In terms of the said order Appellant
joined on 21.06.1991. It is contended that +2 wing of the College
received Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1986 and Appellant's services was
approved as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior
College vide order of approval issued on 30.03.2010 under
Annexure-10.
5.1. It is contended that after approval of his services as against the
3rd Post of Lecturer in English vide order dtd.30.03.2010 in making
him eligible to receive the Grant-in-aid under the GIA Order, 2009,
Appellant's claim since was covered under the provisions of
Validation Act, he raised his claim for approval of his services as per
the provisions of the said Act.
5.2. It is contended that considering the claim made by the Appellant,
his claim was also earlier recommended by the College vide letter
dtd.12.05.2006 under Annexure-6. It is contended that since
Appellant was appointed on 15.06.1991 and the cut-off date fixed
under the Validation Act for such appointment is 31.10.1992 to get
the benefit of approval under the provisions of the said Act,
Appellant's claim so made before the Tribunal was a genuine one
and the same would have been allowed. But on the ground that one
Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy has already been appointed as against the
3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College, claim of the
Appellant was rejected vide the impugned judgment dtd.08.02.2018
under Annexure-8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to
adjustment of the said Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy so reflected in Para 5
of the Judgment reads as follows:-
"From Annexure-7, it appears, the incumbent against the
3rd post namely Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy has been adjusted
against the 3rd post of lecturer in Junior College and his
appointment has been approved with release of grant-in-aid
w.e.f.1.6.1995."
5.3. To the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, learned Sr. Counsel
appearing for the Appellant contended that Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy
was never appointed as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in
Pipili Junior College and in fact his services was approved as against
the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Degree College.
5.4. In support of his submission reliance was placed to the
communication issued by the Department on 09.12.2011 under
Annexure-2. It is contended that since Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy was
appointed and approved as against the 3rd Post of Lecturer in Pipili
Degree College, claim of the Appellant for approval of his services
under the Validation Act in Pipili Junior College could not have been
rejected on the ground that the said post has been occupied by
Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy. It is accordingly contended that the
impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and claim
made by the Appellant before the Tribunal requires to be allowed.
6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the
State Machinery on the other hand while supporting the impugned
judgment, contended that even if it is held that Bhabesh Prasad
Tripathy was appointed as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English
in Pipili Degree College, but in view of the stand taken in Para 6 of
the Judgment, claim of the Appellant is not entertainable. Stand
taken by the Tribunal in Para 6 of the Judgment reads as follows:-
"From the workload statement under Annexure-13, it
appears in the academic sessin 1991-92 ibkt tgree oists
were admissibke in the Junior College and all the three
posts have already been approved. Therefore, the
appointment of the applicatnt cannot be validated in terms
of the Validation Act, 1998. So far as the release of grant-
in-aid and adjustment of the applicant in Degree College is
concerned, in view of the workload statement of both the
Higher Secondary courses and the Decree Courses
submitted by the applicant along with the written note of
argument, it appears, in the academic session 1991-92m
four posts were admissible to the College on account of the
wrokload of bot the Higher Secondary Courses and the
Degree Courses. The Degree College is an Aided
Educational Institution and a Category-II type of College in
terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 1994. From the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 vis-a-vis the mark
sheet of the applicant of the M.A. Examination, it appears,
he has secured 414 marks out of total mark of 800, which is
around 52% in aggregate. For appointment of a Lecturer in
a Degree College, minimum 55% of mark in M.A.
Examinatioin is required. Since the applicant has secured
less than 55% of marks, he cannot be adjusted against the
Degree College eve. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid
circumstances, the applicant is also not eligible to receive
grant-in-aid in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 1994.
Hence, ordered:-"
It is accordingly contended that since as per the work load, 3rd
post of Lecturer was not admissible as per the prevalent work load,
no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned
judgment.
7. To the stand taken by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel
regarding work load and justification of the appointment, learned Sr.
Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on the workload
statement of the College so produced in Court by way of a memo.
Basing on the workload it is contended that at the relevant point of
time one additional post of Lecturer in English was available as per
the 1983 yardstick. It is contended that taking into account the
workload available in the College, Appellant was appointed as
against the 4th post of Lecturer in English and his services was
approved as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior
College vide order dt.30.03.2010 under Annexure-10. It is
accordingly contended that the stand taken in Para 6 of the impugned
judgment is also not sustainable taking into account the workload
available in the College as against the 4th post of Lecturer in English
in Pipili Junior College.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Appellant
was appointed as against the 4th post of Lecturer in English vide
order of appointment issued on 15.06.1991 under Annexure-3.
Pursuant to the said order, Appellant joined as against the said post
on 21.06.1991 and the same was approved by the Governing Body in
its proceeding dtd.14.12.1991 under Annexure-4. It is found that
services of the Appellant was initially approved under the GIA
Order, 2009 by approving his services as against the 3rd post of
Lecturer in English in Pipili Junior College vide order dt.30.03.2010
under Annexure-10.
8.1. However, after such approval of his services, taking recourse to
the provisions contained under the Validation Act, Appellant moved
the Tribunal with a prayer to direct the State authorities to approve
his services as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili
Junior College under the Validation Act. It is not disputed by the
Parties that the claim of the Appellant is not covered under the
Validation Act, having been appointed prior to the cut-off date
i.e.31.12.1992. But as found from the impugned judgment claim of
the Appellant was rejected by the Tribunal on two grounds i.e. post
claimed by the Appellant is already occupied by one Bhabesh Prasad
Tripathy and the workload does not permit the appointment of the
Petitioner at the relevant point of time.
8.2. This Court taking into account the communication available
under Annexure-2 finds that Sri Bhabesh Prasad Tripathy has been
approved as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in English in Pipili
Degree College. Not only that from the workload statement produced
in Court, it is also found that such post was admissible at the relevant
point of time and the same has also been acted upon while approving
the services of the Appellant as against the 3rd post of Lecturer in
English vide order of approval issued on 30.03.2010 under
Annexure-10.
8.3. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the
Tribunal without proper appreciation of the Appellant's claim,
rejected the same vide the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court
is inclined to quash the judgment dtd.08.02.2018. While quashing the
same, this Court directs Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to approve the
services of the Appellant under the provisions of Validation Act and
extend the benefit as due and admissible. This Court directs
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to complete the entire exercise within a
period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
