The Court held that delay and laches are vital considerations in service matters, and the appellant's appointment was not illegal.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 18.01.2017 in F.A.O. No.497 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against judgment dated 15.11.2008 in GIA Case No.39 of 2005 of the State Education Tribunal, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) directing the Respondents No.1 & 2 to approve the appointment of Respondent No.5 on the post of Physical Education Trainer (hereinafter referred to as “PET”) in the Gram Panchayat School, Sailo at Nadhana (hereinafter referred to as the “School”), District Puri and release of block grant in his favour with effect from¹[Hereinafter shortened and referred to as “w.e.f.”.] 01.01.2004, has been dismissed.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

4. The School was established in the year 1987 and was also recognized. On 29.11.1990, the first Managing Committee of the School was constituted and as a stop gap arrangement, a retired government school Physical Education Trainer was appointed on the post of PET on 18.05.1991. The Managing Committee was reconstituted by the Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, Puri vide order dated 15.12.1992. However, the Inspector of Schools on 28.12.1992 modified the composition of the Managing Committee by substituting some names. The approval given to the Managing Committee constituted on 28.12.1992 was challenged by the Secretary of the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992, in O.J.C. No.80 of 1993 before the High Court, which by interim order dated 11.01.1993, stayed the operation of the order dated 28.12.1992 reconstituting the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992 appointed the appellant on the post of PET on 14.05.1994. However, the interim order dated 11.01.1993 of the High Court was vacated on 18.12.1995, as term of the Managing Committee approved on 15.12.1992 stood expired. When on the recommendation of the proposal submitted by the outgoing Managing Committee, the new Managing Committee was reconstituted and approved on 03.07.1996, the same was again challenged in O.J.C. No.6687 of 1996. By a common order dated 23.07.1999 in both the Writ Petitions (O.J.Cs. No.80 of 1993 and 6687 of 1996), the High Court quashed the order of approval dated 03.07.1996 and directed the Inspector of Schools to remain in-charge of the management of the School. Later, when applications were invited to receive block grant(s) under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 with effect from 01.01.2004, the Inspector of Schools passed an order on 02.04.2005 approving the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, where the name of appellant found place and he was held entitled to receive the Block Grant.

5. This led to Respondent No.5 filing GIA Case No.39 of 2005 under Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 challenging the approval order of the appellant before the Tribunal. The Respondent No.5 claimed to be continuing as the PET in the school in question w.e.f. 10.01.1993 on the basis of Resolution dated 07.01.1993 issued by the Managing Committee constituted on 28.12.1992. The Tribunal vide judgment dated 15.11.2008 quashed the order dated 02.04.2005 by which approval was given to the service of the appellant and further directed approval of the appointment of Respondent No.5 and for release of block grant in his favour w.e.f. 01.01.2004. The challenge by the instant appellant to the same before the High Court came to be rejected by the Impugned Judgment.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the advertisement dated 20.04.1994 was issued by the Managing Committee constituted on 15.12.1992 much after stay was granted in its favour, and interviews were conducted on 11.05.1994 for the PET and 3 other posts.

7. It was submitted that the appellant, along wi