IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction over disputes related to staff appointments in aided educational institutions lies with the State Education Tribunal, not the Regional Director, especially after the institution has transitioned to grant-in-aid status.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, seeks to challenge the order dated 29.10.2011 passed by the Joint Director (Schools), Regional Directorate of Education, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) in Appeal Case No.356/1998 whereby the then Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj Circle, Baripada was directed to approve the appointment of present Opposite Party No.3 as 3rd Peon of the School.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that Panchayat High School, Nada, was established in the year 1989 and received recognition of the Government vide order dated 29.6.1991. One Gangadhar Senapati, who was working as Night Watchman-cum-Sweeper, being the 3rd Post, resigned from service in 1993. Consequently, an advertisement was issued by the Management for filling up the vacancy. Five persons including the Petitioner applied pursuant to such advertisement out of whom the Petitioner was selected. The Managing Committee vide Resolution No.40 dated 15.5.1993, resolved to appoint the Petitioner as the 3rd Peon. He joined as such on 22.5.1993. The Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. The Managing Committee submitted proposal for approval of its staff including the Petitioner. By order dated 30.3.2009 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj (Opposite Party No.4), the Petitioner's appointment was approved with eligibility to receive grant-in-aid by way of block grant representing 60% of the emoluments in the Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 w.e.f. 01.4.2008. While the matter stood thus, the present Opposite Party No.3 filed an appeal before the Director, Secondary Education, being Appeal No.356/1998 for a direction to allow him to function as 3rd Peon with all consequential benefits and for declaration that the appointment of the present Petitioner as such, was illegal. It was claimed by him that he was appointed on 07.7.1993 in the 3rd Post whereas the Petitioner was appointed later. It was further alleged that he was not to come to the School as the 4th Peon was not admissible. After receiving notice, the Managing Committee appeared before the Director and filed its counter disputing the claim of the Opposite Party No.3. It was stated that Opposite Party No.3 was appointed as the 4th Peon and continued till 1994 but after introduction of the staffing pattern of the Government, he automatically disappeared. It is further stated by the Petitioner in the present writ petition that since Opposite Party No.3 was appointed as 4th Peon, which was a non-existent post at the relevant time, he could not have been adjusted against the vacancy arising against the 3rd Post as claimed by him. Despite such facts however, the appellate authority on complete non-application of mind held that the Opposite Party No.3 is the proper claimant for the post of 3rd Peon of the School and any appointment and approval made against the said post is invalid. The Inspector of Schools was thus directed to approve his appointment as 3rd Peon. On such facts, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief;

'It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing the parties issue a writ/writs in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.10.11 passed in Appeal Case No.356/1998 under Annexure-8 after declaring the same as illegal. '

3. The private Opposite Party No.3 alone has filed a counter. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.3 was appointed on 3.7.1991 as 4th Peon. When the vacancy arose due to resignation of the incumbent 3rd Peon Gangadhar Senapati, the Managing Committee selected him and issued appointment order on 7.7.1993. The then Secretary-cum-Headmaster, however appointed the Petitioner as the 3rd Peon on 8.8.1994 asking Opposite Party No.3 to work and sign as the 4th Peon knowing very well that the 4th Peon is not admissible. As such, the Opposite Party No.3 submitted complain