State Of Orissa v. Brajeswar Pati
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 25636 of 2017 State of Odisha and others .....
Petitioners Mr. S. Jena, S.C.(S&ME) Deptt.
Vs.
Brajeswari Pati and another .....
Opposite Parties Mr. B. Mohanty, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
23.09.2022 Order No.
06.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged dated 05.04.2017 passed Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 3589 of 2013.
4.
The issue involved in this case is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7707 of 2017 and a batch petitions, which disposed 05.02.2018 with the following order:
"Heard Mr.
Manoranjan Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate assisted Mrs.
Subhasree Mohanty, learned counsel for petitionersapplicants, Mr. B. Rout, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department and Mr. K.
Swain, learned counsel for opposite partyapplicant in W.P.(C) No. 12855 of 2017.
Petitioners 7707, 7708, have challenged part common dated 27.04.2016 passed Orissa Administrative O.A.
(C), 2981 (C), 2993 (C), 2982 (C) and 2992 (C) of 2012, wherein while allowing prayer made applicant-petitioners directed financial service benefits notionally extended in favour of the petitioners. State-functionaries have also filed
17366, 17367, 17368, 17369 12855 challenging aforesaid passed by the Tribunal.
Since all these petitions common passed is under challenge, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
petitioners 7707, 7708, 7715 and 7717 are also the opposite parties in W.P.(C) Nos. 17366, 17367, 17368 and 17369 2017.
Mr.
Mohanty, learned Sr.
Counsel for applicants submitted taking into consideration law decided this Court and by the Apex Court has come to a positive finding and quashed the order of reversion dated 01.09.2012. However the Tribunal instead of extending the actual financial service benefits, directed benefits extended notionally.
He further submitted applicants having requisite qualification and as per Rule-8 (2) (b) of the Odisha Education (Recruitment Conditions Service Teachers Principals Staff Aided Educational Institution) Rules, 1974, hereinafter Rules, their appointments as Headmaster the aided high schools have been approved by the competent authority, therefore, they are entitled to the scale of pay for the post of Headmaster as they had been continuing discharging their duties as such.
Their reversion is redundant view decision Government subsequently which has taken note Tribunal also while passing the impugned order. Learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department other hand however submitted applicants before since appointed as Headmasters without prior approval of the competent authority, the Tribunal should not have quashed the order of reversion. Thus the order need be interfered with. In support his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pabitra Mohan Dash and others v. State of Orissa and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 480. The fact of the case, as is revealed from record is applicants having requisite training qualification having seven year teaching experience as Trained Graduate Teacher well before 03.06.1988 became
Headmaster an aided High Schools with approval of the Director under Rule-8 (2) (b) of the Odisha Education (Recruitment Conditions Service Teachers Principals Staff Aided Educational Institution) Rules, 1974.
However such applicants reverted to trained graduate post 09.07.2002.
State Government clarified matter 10.02.2003 indicating therein headmasters who got promotion under Rule-8 (2)(b) of 1974 Rules prior to coming into force of Rule 8 (3) of 1974 rules, i.e. prior to 03.06.1988 were not supposed to be reverted from post Headmaster to trained graduate post.
Accordingly vide dated 10.02.2003 29.03.2003 State Government revoked reversion order.
However 01.09.2012 an erroneous impression, once again Director, Secondary Education reverted applicants.
Challenging such order, applicants approached O.A.
3431 (C), 2981 (C), 2993 (C), 2982 (C) and 2992 (C) of 2012. The Tribunal taken into consideration the law decided by the Special Bench of this Court as well as by the Apex Court in the case of Pabitra Mohan Dash and others v. State of Orissa and others reported in (2001) 2 SCC 480 wherein it was held after 29.04.1977, i.e.
after regulation (2)(1) prescribing qualification for the post of Headmaster as 7 years of teaching experience as a TGT if nobody has been appointed against post without having years teaching experience as a TGT, his appointment or promotion is perse invalid.
taking note such settled position held applicants'
promotion was approved Director they received Headmaster Scale Pay with effect from 20.07.1985 (for convenience the case of the applicant in O.A. No. 3431 (C) of 2012 was taken by the Tribunal) and therefore, there is no justification to revert them 2nd time to post TGT these Headmasters stand different footing they not to reverted from post Headmasters on the basis of the judgment of this Court as well as by the Apex Court in the case of Priti Ranjan Pradhan and Pabitra Mohan Das.
In view above, there is no error apparent finding with regard to the dispute regarding prior approval of
the applicants in the post of headmasters by the competent authority.
They are entitled to get Headmaster Scale of pay from the date of their approval competent authority.
Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the applicants are entitled to the Headmaster Scale of Pay from the date of their approval by the Director respectively instead of notionally. The arrears be calculated released within period of three months.
With above modification impugned order, W.P. (C) Nos. 7707, 7708, 7715, 7717 of 2017 are accordingly disposed of and the petitions filed State-functionaries, i.e.
17366, 17367, 17368, 17369 12855 of 2017 are accordingly dismissed."
5.
However, the State-petitioners have preferred SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order.
6.
Since the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, parties will be governed by the result of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7.
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Ashok/Subha (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE