Orissa High Court
Upendranath Parida & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 20 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.73 of 2025
An appeal under Section 24-C of Orissa Education Act, 1969 from
order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the State Educational Tribunal,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No.106 of 2024.
----------
Upendranath Parida & Others .... Appellants
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellants - Mr.Mahendra Kumar Sahoo,
Advocate
For Respondents - Mr.S.K. Jee,
Addl. Government Advocate
----------
CORAM
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 20.11.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Appellants' GIA Case No.106 of 2024 has been
negatived by the State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar
with the following observations:-
‚Unless the School as an Institution gets notified by the
State Government under the Grant in Aid Order, 2008,
the question of approving the appointments of its
teaching and non-teaching staff under the said Order
does not arise. For this purpose, the State Government
being the competent authority may, if the circumstances
so allow, re-notify the School under the Grant in Aid
Order, 2008 by antedating the date of notification from
Grant in Aid Order, 2014. This Tribunal has no
jurisdiction under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education
Act, 1969 to pass any direction to the State authorities to
notify or re-notify the School in question as an Aided
Educational Institution. The matter of notification comes
purely within the domain of the State Government.
Therefore, the applicants have no locus standi now to
maintain an application under Section 24-B of the O.E.
Act to re-approve their appointment in terms of the Grant
in Aid Order, 2008 instead of Grant in Aid Order,
2014.‛
2. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argues that
the impugned order suffers from the vice of self-negation of power
and therefore, interference of this Court in appeal under section
24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is eminently warranted. He
draws attention of the Court to the text of sub-sections (1) & (2) of
section 24-B of the Act in support of his contention that the scope
of this provision is very wide and therefore, the Tribunal should
not have rejected the appeal on the ground mentioned in the
impugned order.
3. Learned AGA Mr.Jee, for some time having opposed the
appeal, now agrees with the submission of learned counsel
appearing for the appellants so far as legal conspectus of the
provision is concerned. Both the sides submit that the parameters
of sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 24-B be made clear so that
similar cases do not unnecessarily throng the portals of this Court.
This is fair submission.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parities and having
perused appeal papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence
in the matter by way of setting aside the impugned order and
remitting the matter to the portals of Odisha Education Tribunal
keeping in view the wide expanse of sub-sections (1) &(2) of
Section 24-B of the 1969 Act. For ease of reference, the said
provisions are reproduced below:-
‚24-B-Adjudication by Tribunal-
(1). The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction, power and authority to
adjudicate all disputes and differences, between the Managing
Committee or, as the case may be, the Governing Body of any
private educational institutional and any teacher or employee of
such institution or the State Government or any officer or
authority of the said Government, relating to or connected with the
eligibility, entitlement, payment or non-payment of grant-in-aid;
(2) Any person, aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter
within jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make an application to the
Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.‛
5. Very importantly, the State Legislature has employed the
term ‚all disputes and differences‛ in sub-section (1) of Section 24-
B. Further, the words ‚disputes and differences‛ are followed by
other expression ‚relating to or connected with the eligibility,
entitlement, payment or non-payment of grant-in-aid‛. Textually,
speaking the width of this section is far more than that of section
2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under:-
‚'industrial dispute' means any dispute or difference between
employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or
between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or
with the conditions of labour, of any person‛
The expanse of this provision is discussed by the Apex Court in
State of Punjab v. Gurnam Singh, AIR 2005 SC 998, is beside the
point.
The establishment of statutory Tribunal is for adjudication of all
disputes and differences, arising between the Managing
Committee, the Governing Body of institution and any teacher or
employee of such institution or the State Government or any
officers or authority of said Government. It is the State
Government, its officers or authority that would play a role in
sanctioning & notifying the Grant-in-Aid. Obviously, such
notification may raise dispute as to effective date of grant,
quantum of aid, condition, revocation or reduction of aid and the
like. All that falls within the precincts of Section 24-B. The Tribunal
cannot say that appeal of the kind is not maintainable.
6. The vehement submission of learned AGA Mr. Jee that the
provisions of Section 24-B of the Act are attracted only in the case
of aided institution is difficult to agree with. The very text of sub-
section (1) employee the expression 'private educational
institution' and therefore, countenancing his contention would be
rendering this expression otiose. The Apex Court, in a series of
cases, has observed that every word employed in a provision of
law has to be given due importance and meaning. In Poppatlal
Shah v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274, it is said as under:-
‚It is a settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent,
all the constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each
word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the general
purpose and object of the Act itself.....‛
This apart, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kishore
Baghasingh v. State of Orissa, 2008 (Supp-I) OLR 316, having
scanned the provision, has observed as under:-
'Matter relating to or connected with -
(i) Eligibility
(ii) Entitlement
(iii) Payment
(iv) Non-payment of grant-in-aid, and
(v) The dispute thereof
(a) Between the Managing Committee/Governing Body or private
educational institution versus teachers or employees of such institution,
or
(b) Between Managing Committee/Governing Body of private
educational institution versus the State Government or any officer or
authority of the said Government.
Shall be within the competency of Orissa State Education Tribunal to
consider the dispute....‛
7. Broadly, above observations fix the parameters of policy
content & intent of section 24-B of the Act. It needs to be noted that
the jurisdiction limits of a statutory tribunal have to be construed
in the light of Apex Court decision in Dhulabhai v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78. Viewed from this angle, the
Tribunal could not have refused to entertain the subject appeal on
merit and exercise jurisdiction on a wrong assumption, it lacked
the same.
In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the State Educational
Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No.106 of 2024 is set
at naught. The matter is remitted to the State Education Tribunal,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar for consideration afresh on merits within an
outer limit of one (1) year. All contentions of the parties are kept
open.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 20th day of November, 2025/Basu
Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 21-Nov-2025 11:09:38
