The High Court determined that disputes regarding eligibility for grant-in-aid must be adjudicated by the Tribunal established under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act, rejecting any alternative approaches by the litigant.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The seminal point involved in the instant writ appeal is whether a writ petition can be maintained / entertained against an order dated 27^th March, 2025 passed by the Director, Higher Education, Government of Odisha in rejecting the representation of the appellant claiming for approval of his promotion to the post of Lecturer in Physics, the 7^th post, without approaching the Odisha Education Tribunal (the "Tribunal" for short) constituted under the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (the "O.E. Act" for short).

2. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.15175 of 2025 filed by the appellant solely on the ground that in view of the provisions contained under Section 24-B of the O.E. Act, the Tribunal is competent and vested with the power to adjudicate the dispute raised in the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition, by passing the said provision, does not deserve to be entertained as it is open to the appellant to challenge the said order before the Tribunal.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details and in order to determine the point as formulated hereinbefore, it would be apposite to recapitulate the prelude to the litigations ensued at the behest of the appellant in different fora. Undeniably, the appellant (petitioner) was appointed as a Demonstrator in Physics on 8^th September, 1987 by the Governing Body of the KBDAV College, Nirakarpur ("college" for short). While discharging the duties and responsibilities attached to the said post, the appellant was permitted to hold the 7^th post of Lecturer in Physics with effect from 6^th August, 2000 as the Lecturer in Physics tendered resignation on 5^th August, 2000. Subsequently, in a meeting held on 9^th April 2003, the Governing Body of the college took a resolution to approve the promotion and/or appointment of the appellant in the 7^th post of Lecturer in Physics and approached the Director, Higher Education, Government of Odisha to grant the final approval to such resolution. The Director vide its letter No.47870 dated 4^th December, 2012 declined to grant approval to the resolution adopted by the Governing Body of the college on the premise that a Demonstrator in Direct Payment Scheme does not come within the purview of the initial recruitment procedure prescribed for Lecturer in terms of the provisions contained in the O.E. Act and Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institution) Rules, 1974 ("1974 Rules" for short).

3.1. Feeling aggrieved by such decision, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.9325 of 2013 was filed by the appellant before this Court. Amidst the pendency of the said petition, a letter was caused by the Director, Higher Education as posted in the official website of the Higher Education Department asking the Principal of the college to appear with the relevant documents for verification in order to file the counter affidavit in the aforementioned writ petition and upon completion of such exercise, the writ petition was disposed of on 27^th April, 2017 without extending any benefits in absolute terms to the appellant. However, the Court observed that the grievance raised by the appellant should be considered by the said authorities as the appellant has demonstrated the act of discrimination founded upon the fact that one of the Demonstrators, who was subsequently appointed as a Lecturer, was granted a post facto approval. As the said grievance petition remained pending in the domain of the said authority, the applica