-
UPENDRA PRADHAN AND OTHERS
v.
STA TE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
APRIL 30.1993
[R.M. SABAi AND N. VENKATACHALA,JJJ
Orissa Education Act 1969:
Section JOA-Termination of service of Teacher-School recognised not
aided-Applicability of the provision-Validity o/Tenninatiori Order.
The services of the appellants were terminated by the Management of
A
8
c
a recognised unaided school. The termination was not approved by the
Inspector of Schools. The appellants rded a writ petition before the High
Court for reinstatement and salaries from the date the school became an
aided institution. The High Court having dismissed the writ petition, appel·
D
lants preferred the present appeal.
·
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: Section· 10-A of the Orissa Education Act provides that the
termination of a teacher of an aided institution shall be subject to the approval
of the Inspector of Schools. Use of the word 'aided institution'· is dear
indication that the provisions of approval apply only to the aided schools.
Since on the date the services of the appellants were terminated the institution
E
F
was recognised only and not aided, the Inspector could not have exercised the
power of disapproval. Recognition of an institution for purposes of imparting
education is different than bringing it on grants-in-aid. To the former the
regulatory provisions of the Education Act or the rules do not apply. The
Education Department has no control either on admission of students or '"
members of statT. (476-D-F)
CIVIL APPELL.A TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2476 of 1993 .
. '
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1992 of the Orissa High Court in
O.J.S. No. 4866of1991.
475
G
ff
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1993) 3 S.C.R.
A
R.K. Mehta for the Appellants.
B
H.L. Aggarwal, S.K. PaUi, Abhijat P. Medh, Ms. Kirti Mishra and A.K.
Panda for the Respondents.
·
The following Order of the Court was delivered·
Service of the appellants employed in the school established in the year 1981
recognised in 1983 brought on grants-in-aid in 1988, were terminated in 1986.
Their termination was not approved by the Inspector of Schools. Since the order
not approving termination was not given effect to by the Institution the appellants
C approached the High Court by way of a writ petition for a mandamus to reinstate
them and grant them their salaries from the date the school became an aided
institution. The High Court did not find any merit in the claim for various reasons.
Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act provides that the termination of a
D teacher of an aided institution shall be subject to the approval of the Inspector. Use
of the word 'aided institution' is clear indication that the provi\ions. of approval
apply only to the aided schools. Since on the date the services of the appellants
were terminated the institution was recognised only and not aided the Inspector
could not have exercised the power of disapproval. Consequently no right vested
in the appeliant which he could get enforced in a court of law. The submission that
E
the principle of Section 10-A being benevolent in nature should be extended to
teachers of the institution once it has been granted recognition to avoid exploita-
tion and undue harassment of those who are unequal in the bargain cannot .be
accepted. R~ognition of an institution for purpose of imparting education is
different than bringing it on grants-in-aid. To the former the regulatory provisions
of the Education Act or the rules do not apply. The Education Department has no
F
control either on admission of students or members of staff. The High Court,
therefore, did not conunit any error of law in dismissing the writ petition.
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as
G
lO.QOSts.
GN.
Appeal dismissed.
-
Lex