The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made in accordance with the yardstick and extant rules prescribed by the government are valid and require approval, as held in the Rajendra Kumar Das case (2003) 10 SCC 411.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The facts involved in both these applications are similar and involve a common question of law. As such, both the applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

WPC (TAC) No. 35 of 2014

2. Mukundadaspur High School in the district of Khurda was an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Its roll strength having increased beyond 100 from the year 1990-1991 onwards, the petitioner was appointed as Night-watcher-cum-Sweeper as per appointment letter issued on 20.12.1991. Such appointment is said to have been made against the 4th Peon as per the yardstick prescribed by the Government dated 08.07.1981. The petitioner’s case was recommended by the Managing Committee to the Inspector of Schools for approval of his appointment but as no action was taken the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 13738 of 1997. This Court disposed of the aforesaid case by order dated 29.09.1997 directing the Inspector of Schools, Khurda Circle to take a decision within four months. Pursuant to such order passed by this Court, the Inspector of Schools vide order dated 16.09.1998 rejected the case of the petitioner regarding approval of his appointment on the ground that the post of 4th Peon is not admissible as per yardstick dated 08.07.1981 and the post of Daftary being a promotional post, the same can only be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Class-IV employees of the School in order of seniority as per Government order dated 21.03.1996.

WPC (OAC) No. 2620 of 2016

Uttar Pratap Gram Panchayat Laxmi Narayan High School, Nahangapatna in the district of Jajpur was an aided three class High School and became a Government High School w.e.f. 07.06.1994. During the academic session 1989-90, the roll strength of the School having exceeded 100, a post of Daftary became admissible from such session as per the prescribed yardstick of the Government dated 08.07.1981. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman by the Managing Committee purportedly as the 4th Peon w.e.f. 10.03.1990. The Headmaster of the School, vide letter dated 24.01.1991 submitted a proposal to the Inspector of Schools, Jajpur Circle, Jajpur to approve the appointment of the petitioner as 4th Peon, which was followed by a reminder on 02.01.1993 and representation on 06.07.1996. Since no action was taken in the matter, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 14930 of 1996 seeking necessary relief. By order dated 02.05.1997, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing Inspector of Schools, Jajpur to consider the aforesaid proposal within three months. By order dated 24.01.2000, the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa, in purported compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, rejected the proposal for approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that such appointment was contrary to Rule 5(2) and 8 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rule, 1974. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3176(C) of 2000. During pendency of the said Original Application, the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Orissa and Others vs. Rajendra Kumar Das and Another delivered a judgment on 29.08.2003 holding that though there is no prescription of a 4th Peon in the yardstick dated 08.07.1981 but a post of Daftary is admissible, which is a promotional post. It was further held that if the School is entitled to have a Daftary, the appointment to the said post is to be made by promoting one of the Class-IV employees, and appointment is to be made against the consequential vacancy of the Class-IV post. The Supreme Court further held that while the institution can move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotional appointment of Class-IV employee as Dafta