Prasanna K. Patel Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5352/1999
Petitioner: Prasanna K. Patel
Respondent: State of Orissa & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5352/1999
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 27, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Permanent recognition of school – Condition of appointing 4 trained graduate teachers – Management to get grant-in-aid for 3 teachers – Fourth teacher appointed and drawing scale of trained graduate teacher from 13.9.92 – Said order withdrawn on 26.5.93 – Justification. Held that the 4th post became available by passing orders for recognition. Hence, order dated 26.5.93 quashed and that of 13.9.92 restored. (Paras 3, 4)
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Permanent recognition of school – Condition of appointing 4 trained graduate teachers – Management to get grant-in-aid for 3 teachers – Fourth teacher appointed and drawing scale of trained graduate teacher from 13.9.92 – Said order withdrawn on 26.5.93 – Justification. Held that the 4th post became available by passing orders for recognition. Hence, order dated 26.5.93 quashed and that of 13.9.92 restored. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Under the board’s regulations for getting permanent recognition, the concerned management had to appoint 4 trained graduate teachers whereas the management would get grant-in-aid for 3 trained graduate teachers for release of grant. In terms of this condition, the appellant before us was allowed to draw trained graduate’s scale of pay against the 4th trained graduates’ post w.e.f. September 13, 1992. However, when this order was sought to be withdrawn by another order made on May 26, 1993 by the inspector of schools, a representation was made by the appellant and inspite of intervention by the higher authorities to make payment as ordered earlier no fruitful result yielded, except to the extent of allowing him to draw the trained graduate’s scale of pay w.e.f. December 1, 1994. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court by a writ petition for appropriate reliefs.
2. The High Court proceeded to consider that there was no vacancy available in the institution as a 4th trained graduate assistant teacher and therefore he could not have been appointed and on that basis, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
3. In very terms of the recognition and grant that is given to the institution, necessarily, 4th post became available to which the appellant was appointed as is clear from the order made on September 13, 1992. Having done that we hardly find any reason set out in the order made by the inspector on May 16, 1993 withdrawing the same. It is on this aspect of the matter repeatedly the higher officers called upon the inspector to give his reasons for making that order. The defiant attitude of the inspector is clear that in spite of the directions issued by the deputy director that the arrears should be paid from the date, the original order was made, have not been complied with and for no good reason at all.
4. In the circumstances, the order made by the inspector on May 26, 1993 as modified by the order dated February 1, 1994 shall stand quashed and the order made earlier on September 13, 1992 shall stand restored.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs.
1. Under the board’s regulations for getting permanent recognition, the concerned management had to appoint 4 trained graduate teachers whereas the management would get grant-in-aid for 3 trained graduate teachers for release of grant. In terms of this condition, the appellant before us was allowed to draw trained graduate’s scale of pay against the 4th trained graduates’ post w.e.f. September 13, 1992. However, when this order was sought to be withdrawn by another order made on May 26, 1993 by the inspector of schools, a representation was made by the appellant and inspite of intervention by the higher authorities to make payment as ordered earlier no fruitful result yielded, except to the extent of allowing him to draw the trained graduate’s scale of pay w.e.f. December 1, 1994. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court by a writ petition for appropriate reliefs.
2. The High Court proceeded to consider that there was no vacancy available in the institution as a 4th trained graduate assistant teacher and therefore he could not have been appointed and on that basis, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
3. In very terms of the recognition and grant that is given to the institution, necessarily, 4th post became available to which the appellant was appointed as is clear from the order made on September 13, 1992. Having done that we hardly find any reason set out in the order made by the inspector on May 16, 1993 withdrawing the same. It is on this aspect of the matter repeatedly the higher officers called upon the inspector to give his reasons for making that order. The defiant attitude of the inspector is clear that in spite of the directions issued by the deputy director that the arrears should be paid from the date, the original order was made, have not been complied with and for no good reason at all.
4. In the circumstances, the order made by the inspector on May 26, 1993 as modified by the order dated February 1, 1994 shall stand quashed and the order made earlier on September 13, 1992 shall stand restored.
5. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs.
