SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Ori) 262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.K. Patra, R.K. Dash, JJ.
DIPAK KUMAR SAHOO - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 13911 of 1996
Decided On : 23-12-1998

Advocates Appeared:
K.K. Swain and P.N. Mohanty, for the Appellant; S.C. Satpathy, A.S.C., for the Respondent

The revised yardstick prescribed by the Government for the appointment of non-teaching staff in schools was not applicable to an employee who was appointed before it came into force.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF NON-TEACHING STAFF - APPROVAL - YARDSTICK - REVISED YARDSTICK - APPLICABILITY - PROMOTIONAL POST - CLARIFICATION - EFFECTIVE DATE - APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT - DIRECTIVE TO INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, appointed as the 4th Peon in a school in 1991, challenged the Inspector of Schools' refusal to approve his appointment. The school became an aided educational institution in 1994, and the revised yardstick prescribed by the Government in 1992 did not contemplate a 4th Peon.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revised yardstick was not applicable to the petitioner as he was appointed before it came into force. The post of Daftary (4th Peon) was admissible as per the yardstick in force at the time of his appointment, and the Government's clarification that the post was promotional was effective only from the date of its issuance.

Issues: 1. Whether the revised yardstick prescribed by the Government in 1992 was applicable to the petitioner, who was appointed before it came into force? 2. Whether the post of Daftary (4th Peon) was admissible as per the yardstick in force at the time of the petitioner's appointment? 3. Whether the Government's clarification that the post of Daftary was promotional was effective retrospectively?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The revised yardstick was not applicable to the petitioner as he was appointed before it came into force. 2. The post of Daftary (4th Peon) was admissible as per the yardstick in force at the time of the petitioner's appointment. 3. The Government's clarification that the post of Daftary was promotional was effective only from the date of its issuance.

Final Decision: The court quashed the Inspector of Schools' order refusing to approve the petitioner's appointment and directed the Inspector to approve the appointment within two months.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Patra, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition assails the validity of the Order No. 5368 dated 22.4.1996 at Annexure-5 by which the Inspector of Schools, Bolangir Circle, Bolangir, has refused to approve his appointment as 4th Peon in the school.

2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 12.12.1991, he came to be appointed as 4th Peon in Chaitanya Panigrahi High School, Batharla. He joined the post on 18.12.1991 and has been discharging his duties as such from that day without any break. The said school was notified to be an aided educational institution by Government Order No. 12889 dated 2.5.1995. The Headmaster of the school accordingly forwarded the names of the members of staff to the Inspector of schools, Bolangir for approval of their appointment in letter dated 19.6.1995 at Annexure-3. On 31.10.1995, the Inspector of Schools made a visit to the school and verified the records and relevant attendance registers and forwarded a copy of his visit report to the Headmaster under Memo No. 823 dated 12.1.1996 at Annexure-4. In the said report, the petitioner's name finds place at SI. No. 1 3. Despite the aforesaid report as no action was taken by the Inspector, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing OJC No. 945 of 1996. A Bench of this Court by order dated 12.2.1996 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Inspector of Schools to consider the proposal submitted by the Headmaster and dispose of the same within the period indicated in the order. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned Office Order No. 5368 dated 22.4.1996 at Annexure-5.

3. The Inspector of Schools, who is the opp. party No. 3 has filed counter affidavit. His case is that at the time,of appointment of the petitioner as 4th Peon in 1991, the School in question was an unaided one. It became an aided educational institution with effect from 1.6.1994. By the time the management submitted the proposal for approval of the staff showing the petitioner as 4th Peon in the school, the revised yardstick prescribed by the Government in letter No. 15500/E dated 27.3.1992 at Annexure-A had come into force, which did not contemplate a 4th Peon in the school. The Director also in office letter No. 11600 dated 21.3.1996 at Annexure-B instructed the Inspector of Schools not to approve the appointment of 4th class staff even if the Managing Committee had made such appointments. In view of the aforesaid, as the post of 4th Peon was not admissible, the impugned order was passed disapproving the appointment of the petitioner.

4. Shri Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 30 (k) of the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1991 (corresponding to Rule 9 (a) of the Orissa Education (Management of Private Schools) Rules, 1980, since repealed), provides that the Managing Committee shall make appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in accordance with the provisions contained in the Education Act, Rules and Instructions of the Department. At the time of appointment of the petitioner in the school as 4th Peon, the yardstick prescribed by the Government in Education and Youth Service Department Letter No. 28465 EYS dated 8.7.1981 was in force which provided that if the roll strength of the school exceeded 100, one post of 4th Peon was admissible. As the Managing Committee was required to make appointment as per the aforesaid yardstick, the petitioner was appointed as 4th peon and the roll strength of the School justified such appointment.

Learned Counsel appearing for the opp. parties, on the other hand, submitted that the Government Letter No. 28465 EYS dated 8.7.1981 provided for admissibility of a post of Daftary and the said post being a promotional post, the petitioner could not have been appointed straightaway as Daftary although he describes himself loosely as the 4th peon. In









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top