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

2008 Supreme(Ori) 1120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
I. Mahanty, B.P. Das, JJ.
SUDARSAN MISHRA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 6476 of 2001
Decided On : 12-02-2008

Advocates Appeared:
B. Routray, A.K. Baral, D.K. Mohapatra, R.K. Das, B.N. Satpathy and B.B. Routray, for the Appellant; S. Das and Additional Government Advocate, for the Respondent

Under-qualifications condoned and appointment approved prior to 1.4.1989 entitle a teacher to the UGC scale of pay.

Headnote:

UGC Scale of Pay - Appointment of Teachers - Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1981, Section 3 - The court discussed the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1981, Section 3, and the Resolution dated 6.11.1990 (Annexure-C/2) to determine the entitlement of the Petitioner to the UGC scale of pay. The court relied on previous judgments and legal provisions to conclude that the Petitioner, whose under-qualifications had been condoned and appointment approved prior to 1.4.1989, was entitled to the UGC scale of pay.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, appointed as a Lecturer in Oriya, sought the benefit of UGC scale of pay after being appointed on an ad hoc basis in different colleges. The State Government's decision not to extend the UGC scale of pay to the Petitioner due to under-qualification led to the filing of a writ application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Petitioner, whose under-qualifications had been condoned and appointment approved prior to 1.4.1989, was entitled to the UGC scale of pay.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner, with under-qualifications condoned and appointment approved prior to 1.4.1989, was entitled to the UGC scale of pay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and legal provisions, including the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1981, Section 3, and the Resolution dated 6.11.1990 (Annexure-C/2), to conclude that the Petitioner was entitled to the UGC scale of pay.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application and directed that the Petitioner be given the benefit of U.G.C. scale of pay within a period of four months from the date of communication of the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The case of the Petitioner as delineated in this writ application tends to reveal as follows:

The Petitioner on being selected was appointed as a Lecturer in Oriya in Class-II of the Orissa Educational Service on ad hoc basis and was posted in the Government Evening College, Sambalpur (Annexure-1). While continuing there, he was extended the benefit of UGC scale of pay, as stated. While the Petitioner was continuing in the said College, the State Government decided that the Lecturers, who were continuing in the Government Colleges and whose services had not been concurred by the Public Service Commission, would be given appointment in the aided colleges. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined as Lecturer in Oriya in the Nayagarh College, Nayagarh on ad hoc basis and the said appointment was extended from time to time with the approval of the Director of Hrgher Education, O.P.2.

During such continuance of the Petitioner, the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Teachers Validation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Validation Act') was enacted. Section 3 of the said Validation Act stipulated that the Lecturers of aided colleges, who being appointed by the Governing Body of such colleges on ad hoc basis on or after 1st December, 1976 were continuing and had validly and lawfully served as such Lecturers for a period of at least one year without any break or with a break or breaks, in one aided college or in more than one aided colleges by 1st March, 1981 would, for all intents and purposes, be deemed to have been validly appointed and no such appointment would be liable to be challenged in any Court of law merely on the ground that the appointment was made otherwise than in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Orissa Education Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. The service of the Petitioner was accordingly validated vide order dated 24.5.1983 (Annexure-3) and the appointments of the Petitioner and three other Lecturers, who were working in Nayagarh College and had one year service to their credit by 1.3.1981, were declared to have been regularized from the date of their joining in the concerned college (s).

In the Government Evening College, Sambalpur, the Petitioner was getting UGC scale of pay, but he was not allowed the said scale of pay after his adjustment in Nayagarh College on the ground that he had secured 53.5% mark, i.e. less than 54% marks in the M.A.Examination on the date of his appointment. Against that the Petitioner made several representations to the authorities. When no action was taken on his representations, the Petitioner filed a writ application being OJC No. 4444/1995 in this Court. While disposing of the same, this Court by its order dated 24.7.1995 allowed the Petitioner to make fresh representation to the Director of Higher Education and three months' time was granted to the Director to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner after giving him a chance of hearing. The Petitioner accordingly made a representation. The Director by his order dated 19.12.2000 rejected the representation of the Petitioner on the ground that the Finance Department did not agree to allow the revised UGC scale of pay to the under qualified teachers appointed in non-Government Colleges and communicated the said order to the Principal of Nayagarh College, vide Annexure-5. In other words, the Petitioner having secured 53.5% marks in the Post Graduate Examination, the benefit of UGC scale of pay was not allowed to him.

Aggrieved by that decision, the Petitioner has again filed this writ application on the ground, inter alia, that when the State Government had extended the benefit of UGC scale of pay to one Alekh Chandra Samal, whose case was similar to that of the Petitioner, the decision of the Director not to extend such benefit to the Petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, and has therefore, prayed to quash the order in Annexure-5 and to issue a Writ of







































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top