Orissa High Court
Badal Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others on 20 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO NO. 615 OF 2019
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Badal Kumar Nayak .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : M/s K.K. Swain, S.C.D. Dash, P.K.
Mohanty, P.K. Mohapatra & K. Swain,
Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Jee,
Addl. Government Advocate
[Respondent Nos.1 &2]
Mr. Trilochan Barik, Advocate
[Respondent No.3]
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & judgment : 20.11.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
This appeal under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act,
1969 seeks to call in question the order dated 13/10.06.2019, whereby
Appellant's G.I.A Case No.237 of 2016 has been negatived and as a
consequence his prayer for grant of approval and consequent release of
Block Grant has been negatived. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned
order, being relevant, are reproduced for ease of reference:
"The applicant, who is working as a Lecturer in Political Science in
Siddha Baranga College of Education and Technology at Balaka Bihar, in
the district of Jagatsinghpur in this application U/s.24-B of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969 has sought for a direction to the OP Nos.1 and 2 to
approve his appointment with release of Block Grant in terms of the Grant in
Aid Order, 2008.
From the order of appointment of the application under Annexure-2
it appears, he was appointed on 09.10.2003, which was after the cutoff dated
of 01.06.1998. Therefore, the applicant is not eligible to receive Block grant
in terms of the Grant in Aid Order, 2008. Accordingly, this G.I.A.
application is dismissed. However, it is made clear that there would be no
impediment to consider the case of the applicant in terms of the Grant in Aid
Order, 2014."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the
Tribunal grossly erred in taking the date of appointment of his client, i.e.,
09.10.2003, as a relevant consideration, when what is relevant is the cutoff
date 01.06.1998 fixed under Rule-4 of the Grant-in-Aid Order of 2008. In
other words, he argues that the date of appointment is irrelevant for
considering the claim of the appointee for approval & release of grant-in-
aid. Therefore, he seeks invalidation of the impugned order.
3. Learned AGA-Mr. Jee appearing for the OPs vehemently resists
the appeal contending that in view of the Odisha Education (Recruitment
and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided
Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, more particularly Rule-8, the
appointment of the Appellant could not have been made at all and
therefore, the question of sanctioning the Grant-in-Aid could not arise. In
reply, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Institution itself
having been notified for the grant with effect from 08.04.2011 and
appointment of his client having been made preceding such notification,
the 1974 Rules would stand miles away from the case.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the appeal papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter
as under and for the following reasons:
4.1. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the
Appellant that the application of 1974 Rules is only to the Aided
Institutions, and that on the date his client was appointed, the Institution
was not aided. Therefore, he is right in telling the Court that the rigors
and restrictions enacted in Rule-8 (2) of 1974 Rules may not be applicable
to the case of Appellant, since they govern only appointments in Aided
Institutions.
4.2. Mr. Swain's contention that Para-4 of 2008 Order contemplates
the grant of recognition or affiliation to the Institution of the kind that was
established before 01.06.1998 and that the question of date of appointment
of the teachers has nothing to do with the parameters of this provision.
That being said, the relevant factors, such as the date of notification of the
grant-in-aid to the institution in question and the nature of appointment of
the Appellant to the post in question are all the matters of facts, the
Appellant has to plead & prove before the tribunal itself, if necessary by
amending his Appeal Memo. That course cannot be adopted here.
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the
impugned order having been set at naught, matter is remitted to the portals
of Orissa Education Tribunal at Bhubaneswar for consideration afresh
within an outer limit of six (6) months. All contentions of the parties are
kept open. All stakeholders to be notified & heard.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
Dixit Krishna Shripad,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 20th day of November, 2025/Madhusmita
Location: HIH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
