SUBHASHREE SARANGI vs STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

S. N. Prasad, J.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in

Appeal Case No.24 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Presiding Officer has dismissed the appeal holding it not maintainable, since the petitioner

was a Guest Lecturer and she was disengaged from duty.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailed the said order, has submitted by referring the provision of Section-10-A(1) of the Orissa

Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred as “OEA Act, 1969â€) which contains the provision that the services of a teacher [and other members

of the staff] of an aided educational institution shall not be terminated without obtaining the prior approval in writing of the-

(a)[Director], in the case of a teacher [and other members of the staff] of a college and

(b)Circle Inspector of Schools having jurisdiction, in the case of teacher [and other members of the staff] of a School.

(2) Every order passed by the Director or Circle Inspector, as the case may be, either according approval or refusing to accord approval under sub-

section (1) shall be communicated to the parties concerned within three months of the reference.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (1) may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of

the order. He by putting reliance upon the said provision submits that although the petitioner was appointed as Guest Lecturer, but she has raised the

issue of termination of her services which needs adjudication and as such, after the order dated 9.9.2015 passed by the Director, Higher Education,

Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-9) wherein it has been held by him that the petitioner since was appointed first as contract teacher and then Guest

Lecturer in Odia against a transfer vacancy, since the petitioner has not yet come into GIA fold and is temporarily engaged as a Guest Lecturer, it is

up to the GB either to let her continue till the post is filled up permanently by a Selection Board Candidate or to disengage her.

The petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, was preferred appeal before the Tribunal which has been rejected by saying that the petitioner was

working as a Guest Lecturer and she was disengaged from duty. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable. According to her, she is liable to question the

legality and propriety of the action of the Managing Committee and the Director and as such, the appropriate forum is the Tribunal in view of the

provision of Section-10-A of the OEA Act, 1969.

Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties has contested the case by submitting that

there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal since the very basis of the appointment of the petitioner is in question as because she has been

appointed as Guest Lecturer which itself means that she has been appointed against the transfer vacancy and as such, the Director has rightly passed

an order leaving it upon the Governing Body either to let her continue or to disengage her. According to her, since the very nature of appointment is

not permanent, she is not get the benefit of grant-in-aid and as such, she will not said to be in engagement in real sense. According to the definition of

teacher, the appeal will not lie before the Tribunal in view of Section-10-A(3) of the OEA Act, 1969.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident from the OEA Act, 1969 that the

definition of teacher has not stipulated although the conditions of services of aided institutions has been provided. Section-10-A of the OEA Act, 1969

contains the provision of services of teachers of aided institutions who are not to be terminated without approval. It is evident from the provision of

Section-10-A of the OEA Act, 1969, which is quoted hereinabove, that the services of the teacher and other members of the staff of an aided

institution shall not be terminated without approval in writing and if there is no approval of the Director, then the appeal will lie before the Tribunal

within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

It is evident from the pleading made in the writ petition that the petitioner’s claim to be an appointee as Guest Lecturer although the same is being

disputed by the other sides by submitting that the petitioner has been appointed as a transfer vacancy.

The petitioner’s contention is that whatever may be the nature of appointment but before restraining him in discharging duty which amounts to

termination, approval of the Director is required under Section-10-A(1) of the OEA Act, 1969. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing, has

submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner for adjudication of the issue as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was a Guest Lecturer

against the transfer vacancy or against the permanent employee which needs adjudication and for that, she has made an application before the

Director, but the Director instead of decide it refer to the Governing Body. Hence, the petitioner, having no option, has approach before the Tribunal

by ventilating her grievance challenging the order of the Director.

It is evident from the pleadings and the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has raised the issue for its adjudication

that relates to her nature of appointment whether she has been appointed against the transfer vacancy or against the permanent vacancy which needs

adjudication and as such, she has approached to the Director and the Director has not passed any order on merit, rather left the chapter open for the

Governing Body. Thus, the issue raised by the petitioner has remained unanswered and it is settled that a litigant cannot be remediless. Now question

is that whether forum is Education Tribunal or not?

According to my considered view and taking into consideration of the provision of Section-10-A of the OEA Act, 1969, the Education Tribunal is

meant for that by way of legislation to decide the claim of teachers on merit. Further, whether the petitioner is a teacher or not? It is also subject

matter of adjudication, which can be answered by the Education Tribunal 7. Hence, according to the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal will

be said to be an appropriate forum to adjudicate the issue.In view thereof, the order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education

Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.24 of 2015 under Annexure 10 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is quashed.The

matter is remitted before the Tribunal for passing the order by adjudicating the nature of appointment and to take decision in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.