Upendra Pradhan and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others
Email(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.10230 of 1992)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1992 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 4866 of 1991.)
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.10230 of 1992)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1992 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 4866 of 1991.)
Mr. H.L. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.K. Patri, Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Ms. Kirti Mishra and Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Orissa Education Act
Section 10-A – Termination of services – Appellants were employed in the school which was recognised in the year 1981 and brought on grants-in-aid in 1988 – Services of appellants terminated in 1986 – Inspector of schools did not give approval to the termination – Appellants’ writ petition for reinstatement in service and payment of back wages dismissed by the High Court – Regulatory provisions under the Act applicable only to aided school and Inspector could not have exercised the power of disapproval – Recognition of institution is different than the grants-in-aid – Decision of High Court up
Held –
Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act provides that the termination of a teacher of an aided institution shall be subject to the approval of the Inspector. Use of the word ‘aided institution’ is clear indication that the provisions of approval apply only to the aided schools. Since on the date the services of the appellants were terminated the institution was recognised only and not aided the Inspector could not have exercised the power of disapproval. Consequently no right vested in the appellant which he could get enforced in a court of law. The submission that the principle of Section 10-A being benevolent in nature should be extended to teachers of the institution once it has been granted recognition to avoid exploitation and undue harassment of those who are unequal in the bargain cannot be accepted. Recognition of an institution for purposes of imparting education is different than bringing it on grants-in-aid. To the former the regulatory provisions of the Education Act or the rules do not apply. The Education Department has no control either on admission of students or members of staff. The High Court, therefore, did not commit any error of law in dismissing the writ petition. (Para 2)
1. Service of the appellants employed in the school established in the year 1981 recognised in 1983 brought on grants-in-aid in 1988, were terminated in 1986. Their termination was not approved by the Inspector of Schools. Since the order not approving termination was not given effect to by the Institution the appellants approached the High Court by way of a writ petition for a mandamus to reinstate them and grant them their salaries from the date the school became an aided institution. The High Court did not find any merit in the claim for various reasons.
2. Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act provides that the termination of a teacher of an aided institution shall be subject to the approval of the Inspector. Use of the word ‘aided institution’ is clear indication that the provisions of approval apply only to the aided schools. Since on the date the services of the appellants were terminated the institution was recognised only and not aided the Inspector could not have exercised the power of disapproval. Consequently no right vested in the appellant which he could get enforced in a court of law. The submission that the principle of Section 10-A being benevolent in nature should be extended to teachers of the institution once it has been granted recognition to avoid exploitation and undue harassment of those who are unequal in the bargain cannot be accepted. Recognition of an institution for purposes of imparting education is different than bringing it on grants-in-aid. To the former the regulatory provisions of the Education Act or the rules do not apply. The Education Department has no control either on admission of students or members of staff. The High Court, therefore, did not commit any error of law in dismissing the writ petition.
3. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
