JUDGMENT

P. K. MISRA, J. —The petitioners were appointed as Store-Keepers in the various Science Departments of Sri Jayadev College of Education and Technology. Subsequently, vide separate orders passed on 9.7.1998, they were relieved from their duties. The legality of such orders as per Annexure-1 series has been called in question in this common writ application. It is contended by the petitioners that without holding any enquiry and without taking prior approval of the D.P.I. as contemplated in Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act, the petitioners have been relieved from their duties. It appears that the matter had been brought to the notice of the Director of Higher Education and the Deputy Director had written a letter to the Principal indicating that the petitioners had been relieved from their duties without holding any enquiry.

2. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the College that the three petitioners had been appointed at a time when the Special Officer was in charge in the absence of the Governing Body and some disturbances had been caused by some people relating to the appointments of the petitioners and when the matter was referred to the Special Officer for advice, he had directed to terminate the services of the petitioners and accord¬ingly they were relieved from their duties.

3. There is no doubt that even for terminating the service of a temporary employee of an aided College, the prior approval of the D.P.I. is necessary. It is also apparent that since the College was an aided College, the petitioners could have approached the Education Tribunal as is clear from the decision reported in 47 (1979) CLT 517 (Managing Committee, Orissa Police High School v. Rasbehari Patnaik and others). However, since no disputed questions of fact are involved in the present writ application and as the matter had been entertained in the year 1998 and it may not be proper to drive the petitioners to seek their alternative remedy before the Tribunal, the writ applica¬tion is being disposed of.

4. There is no doubt that the orders relieving the petitioners from their duties cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained in Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act. It is obvious that they were relieved from their duties being pressurised by members of public, but that cannot be a ground for terminating their services. Since rules of natural justice had not been followed, no enquiry had been conducted in accordance with rules and prior approval had not been obtained, the orders relieving the petitioners from their duties cannot be sustained. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while set¬ting aside the orders in Annexure-1 series and permitting the petitioners to rejoin the College, we make it clear that no arrear pay shall be paid to the petitioners for the period for which they did not work. However, it is made clear that there shall be continuity of service for other purposes.

5. The writ application is accordingly allowed subject to the directions contained above. There will be no order as to costs.

P. K. PATRA, J. I agree.

Petition allowed.