Orissa High Court Denies Claim For Regularization Of Previous Service Due To Extended Delay In Filing

Background Facts

The Petitioner was appointed against an Additional Trained Graduate post on 04.7.1991 in Akhua Odanga High School. She had B.S.C. B.Ed. qualification in C.B.Z. Her appointment was confirmed by the Managing Committee in its resolution dated 31.7.1991. On 23.7.1996, the Managing Committee recommended her case to the authorities for approval of her appointment. The Inspector of Schools, after necessary verification recommended the case of the Petitioner to the Director, Secondary Education for approval of her appointment and for release of her monthly salary under the direct payment scheme.

However the petitioner's appointment was not approved on the ground that she did not have the requisite qualification i.e. B.Ed., which she acquired in July, 1996 as an in-service candidate. Aggrieved by the same, she filed a writ petition which was disposed of by order dated 14.5.1998 directing the Director, Secondary Education to dispose of her representation after making proper inquiry. However, no action was taken.

The Government in School and Mass Education Department issued a letter dtd.24.4.2000 whereby the persons who had not acquired B.Ed. qualification by 7.4.1994 were decided to be removed from service by holding their appointments to be illegal. It was challenged by large number of Additional Section Teachers before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal.

By order dated 24.2.2003 the Tribunal, quashed the letter dtd.24.4.2000 on the basis of ratio in Bibekananda Das v. State of Orissa and others. Therefore the appointments of similarly situated Additional Section Teachers were approved.

Now the petitioner submitted several representations to the authorities including the Director that she stands on similar footing as the applicants before the Tribunal and therefore, she should be allowed to discharge her duty in the School along with all consequential service and financial benefits. But no steps were taken.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was contended by the Petitioner that since she was appointed in the School prior to December, 1993, therefore ratio decided in Bibekananda Das v. State of Orissa applies to her. Therefore, her service could have been approved with untrained graduate scale of pay and after acquiring B.Ed. qualification, with trained graduate scale of pay. It was further contended that the Tribunal quashed the order of termination issued by the Government, therefore, it applies to the petitioner as well, even though she was not an applicant.

It was further submitted by the petitioner that since her services were terminated and she was out of job thereby, she took up another employment in Sidheswar U.P. School, which cannot be treated as an illegality.

On the other hand it was contended by the respondents that petitioner completed her +3 degree course in Bachelor of Science at Kendrapara College in April, 1992, which is subsequent to her appointment in the School. Therefore, her appointment is illegal. Further she passed B.Ed. from Berhampur University in July, 1996 claiming to be an in-service candidate, but the same was completely false. It was further argued that the petitioner's appointment was approved by the Managing Committee. But she was never appointed against an Additional Trained Graduate post.

It was further stated by the respondent that the petitioner has approached the Court after long lapse of 15 years from the order dated 14.5.1998 without explaining the delay. Also she had already taken up employment in another School where her services have been approved and she was in receipt of block grant, therefore, her claim to be regularized in her former post no longer survives for consideration.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the petitioner slept over the matter since 1998 and came into the action only in 2013. And nothing was shown to explain as to why the petitioner did not approach the Court earlier. Further the order of Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1634(C)/2000 was passed in 2003, then also Petitioner did nothing for all these years.

It was further observed by the court that the petitioner was not one of the applicants in the challenge against the government order before the Tribunal. Evidently, the Petitioner in the meantime secured employment in another school with her services being approved and block grant being released in her favour, where she did not feel the need to join with the applicants before the Tribunal.

It was held by the court that the petitioner had not shown anything to prove that she was discharging her duties in the former School till she was appointed in another School as Headmistress. Therefore the petitioner, despite being validly employed in an institution seeks to extend such employment backwards to her former institution apparently to claim further service benefits, which is wrong. It was further observed by the court that the subsequently appointment of the petitioner as Headmistress in Sidheswar U.P. School was not disclosed by the petitioner.

It was held by the court that due to gross delay and laches exhibited by the petitioner and her employment in another School, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief including regularisation.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Name : Tapaswini Acharya v. State of Odisha & others

Case No. : W.P.(C) No13837 of 2013

Counsel for the Petitioner : K. Swain

Counsel for the Respondents : S.N.Patanaik, A.G.A