Orissa High Court
Suchitra Bal vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 16 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 246
Author: A.K.Rath
Bench: A.K.Rath
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1684 of 2018
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
-----------
Suchitra Bal .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite parties
For Petitioner ... Mr. Purusottam Chuli, Advocate.
For Opposite parties ... Additional Government Advocate.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing: 16.07.2018 : Date of judgment:16.07.2018
Dr. A.K.Rath, J This petition challenges the order dated 5.10.2016,
passed by the Director, Higher Education Department, Odisha, vide
Annexure-9, whereby and whereunder the application of the
petitioner for appointment to the post of Asst. Librarian under Orissa
Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 has been
rejected.
2. Hemanta Kumar Rout, husband of the petitioner, was
working as an Asst. Librarian (1st post) in Nalini Kanta
Mohavidyalaya, Rajnagar, Keonjhar. Pursuant to the approval of the
Government in the Higher Education Department vide order
2
No.55125, dated 12.12.2013, he was receiving block grant. He
expired on 20.06.2012. He was the sole bread earner of his family.
After his demise, the family members are in a distressed condition.
The petitioner, who is the widow of Hemanta Kumar Rout, filed an
application before the Principal, Nalini Kanta Mohavidyalaya,
Rajnagar, Kendrapara on 27.6.2012 to appoint her under the
rehabilitation assistance scheme. Pursuant to the resolution of the
Governing Body, the Principal issued letter of appointment to the
petitioner appointing her in the post of Asst. Librarian (1st post) on
05.07.2012. The petitioner joined in the post on 11.7.2012. The
Governing Body of the College sent the proposal to the Government
on 02.09.2016 for approval of the appointment of the petitioner
under rehabilitation assistance scheme. The same was rejected on
05.10.2016, vide Annexure-9, on the ground that there is no
provision for appointment under the rehabilitation assistant scheme
to the legal heirs of the employees of the College receiving Block
Grant.
3. Heard Mr. Purusottam Chuli, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
4. Mr. Chuli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the husband of the petitioner was functioning as Asst. Librarian (1st
post). He died while in service. After his death, the family received a
setback. The application of the petitioner was rejected on untenable
3
and unsupportable grounds. To buttress the submission, he places
reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @
Paul vs. State of Odisha and others, (W.P.(C) No.5022 of 2013
disposed of on 11.5.2016).
5. In Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), the question arose as to
whether the benefit of the Scheme applies to the family members of
an aided educational institution, which is receiving block grant ?
This Court held -
"7. Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 defines
the Aided Educational Institutions, which is quoted
hereunder:
"3(b) Aided Educational Institutions means
private educational institution which is eligible
to, and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State
Government, and includes an educational
institution which has been notified by the State
Government to receive grant-in-aid."
8. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is
abundantly clear that private educational institution which
is eligible to, and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State
Government, and includes an educational institution which
has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-
in-aid is an aided educational institution. The Act does not
make any distinction between the full Grant School or Block
Grant School. Moreover, the private educational institution
which has been notified by the State Government to receive
grant-in-aid is also an aided educational institution."
6. The judgment in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) applies with
full force to the facts of this case. The application of the petitioner
was rejected on jejune grounds. In view of the same, the impugned
order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Director, Higher
4
Education, Odisha, opposite party no.2, for re-consideration in
accordance with law.
7. The petition is allowed.
.............................
DR. A.K.RATH, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated 16th July, 2018/Uks