Sl. Case No vs Wp(C)/34769/2020 Dinabandhu Das ... on 19 September, 2024

[Cites 65, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Sl. Case No vs Wp(C)/34769/2020 Dinabandhu Das ... on 19 September, 2024

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch

SL. CASE NO. PETITIONER(S) OPPOSITE PARTIES
NO.
1. WP(C)/34769/2020 Dinabandhu Das 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Madhupur College

2. WP(C)/24237/2019 1.Tarakanta Choudhury 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Nigamananda Nayak
Education Department
3. Sangram Keshari Rout
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Birupa Degree
College

3. WP(C)/24589/2019 1.KarunakarNayak 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Ajit Kumar Parida
Education Department
3. Tushar Ranjan Jena
2. Director,Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Birupa Degree
College

4. WP(C)/25063/2019 Banshidhar Mishra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Karilopatana Degree
College

5. WP(C)/6014/2020 1.Governing Body of Tusra Degree 1.State of Odisha represented through its
College Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Gati Krushna Udgata Education Department

3. Niranjan Sharma 2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha

4. Sarjan Padhan
5. Kabiraj Sahu
6. Rahas Bihari Bag
7. Santosh Kumar Pradhan
8. Duleswar Rana
9. Mangalu Pradhan

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 1 of 50
6. WP(C)/8959/2020 Dhananjay Kar 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Badampahar Junior
College
7. WP(C)/8960/2020 1.Dr.Rajendra Das 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Radhanath Mohanta
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Badampahar Degree
College
8. WP(C)/8961/2020 Alok Kumar Nayak 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Ispat (Auto) College
9. WP(C)/9909/2020 1.Gajendra Kumar Sethy 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Ch. Sudhakar
Education Department
3. Basanta Kumar Nayak
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Rabindranath Jena
3. Governing Body of GopalKrushna
5. AmulyaratnaSahu Junior Vigyan Mohavidyalaya
6. Jagadish Chandra Pal
7. Anita Mishra
8. Ramesh Chandra Sahu
9. Biranchi Narayan Behera
10. Gobardhan Behera
11. Subhransu Sekhar Sahu
12. Abhimanyu Sahu
13. Pratap Chandra Behea
10. WP(C)/12010/2020 1.Sanjib Kumar Dash 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Dr.Giridhar Nayak
Education Department
3. E. Rabinarayan Patro
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Srinibas Swain
3. Governing Body of Anchalika Degree
Mahavidyalaya

11. WP(C)/21263/2020 Dillip Kumar Mohanty 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Durga Charan
Chilika College

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 2 of 50
12. WP(C)/23205/2020 1. Namita Dash 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Saroja Kumar Dash
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha

13. WP(C)/23222/2020 D. Trinath Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha,
3. Governing Body of Sri
JagannathMahavidyalaya

14. WP(C)/23502/2020 Prakash Chandra Gouda 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher 'Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sri Iagannath Junior
Mohavidyalaya

15. WP(C)/26364/2020 1.Managing Committee of 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Rajanikanta UPME School Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School &
2. Harish Ch Parida Mass Education Department

3. Achinta Kumar Das Mohapatra 2. Director, Elementary Education, Odisha

16. WP(C)/26369/2020 1.Managing Committee of Srihari 1.State of Odisha represented through its
UPME School Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School &
2.Niranjan Parida Mass Education Department

3. Uttam Kumar Panigrahi 2. Director, Elementary Education, Odisha

17. WP(C)/26375/2020 1.Managing Committee of 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Pakharabad UPME School Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School &
2. Sachindra Kumar Mohanty Mass Education Department
2. Director, Elementary Education, Odisha
3. Ananda May Maity
18. WP(C)/26944/2020 1. Rama Chandra Das (since dead) 1. State of Odisha represented through its
represented by LRs. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School &
Mass Education Department
1(a) Nirupama Das
2. Director, Higher Secondary Education,
(b) Pravas Ranjan Das
Odisha
(c) Subas Ranjan Das
3. Governing Body of Sriram Chandra
2. Ananta Narayan Mishra Bhanj Junior College
3. Muralidhar Mohanta
4. Nabakishore Behera
5. Dipti Prakash Mohanta
6. Satrughna Mohanta
7. Dr. Hadibandhu Behera
8. Rama Chandra Besra
9. Santosh Kumar Mohanta

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 3 of 50
10. Maheswar Mohanta
11. Mahendra Nath Singh (since
dead) represented by LRs.
11 (a). Kunimani Singh
(b) Ranjit Kumar Singh
(c) Saraswati Singh
19. WP(C)/31185/2020 Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Indira Memorial
Junior College

20. WP(C)/31186/2020 1.Susil Kumar Panda 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Rajendra Gouda
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Indira Memorial
Junior College

21. WP(C)/34771/2020 Dayanidhi Biswal 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Balasore Junior
College/Higher Secondary School

22. WP(C)/34772/2020 Kamalakanta Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of K.C. Pipili College
23. WP(C)/864/2021 Ambika Prasad Samantaray 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department

2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sri Jagannath
Mahavidyalaya

24. WP(C)/872/2021 Nalinikanta Jena 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sri Jagannath Junior
Mohavidyalaya

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 4 of 50
25. WP(C)/874/2021 Rama Chandra Nahak 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department

2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sri Jagannath Junior
Mohavidyalaya

26. WP(C)/877/2021 Sarata Chandra Joshi 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sri Jagannath
Mahavidyalaya

27. WP(C)/879/2021 Bichitrananda Sahu 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sri Jagannath Junior
Mohavidyalaya

28. WP(C)/14859/2021 Srikanta Ballava Samanta 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Arda Junior
College/Higher Secondary School

29. WP(C)/14862/2021 Hemanta Kumar Dihudi 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Pabitra Mohan
Memorial +3 Degree College

30. WP(C)/14864/2021 1.Bidyadhar Behera 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Lalitendu Sahu
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Gopal Krushna
Junior Vigyan Mohavidyalaya/Higher
Secondary School

31. WP(C)/28005/2021 Sunil Kumar Panda 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Indravati Degree
Mahavidyalaya

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 5 of 50
32. WP(C)/28007/2021 Saket Bihari Behera 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Indravati Degree
Mahavidyalaya

33. WP(C)/28008/2021 Chitta Ranjan Mund 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Indravati Degree
Mahavidyalaya

34. WP(C)/28010/2021 Kamal Lochan Dash 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Panchayat Samiti
Junior College

35. WP(C)/28012/2021 Sudeep Kumar Purohit 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Panchayat Samiti
Higher Secondary School

36. WP(C)/28014/2021 Bibhu Charan Mohanty 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Barpali College,
Barpali

37. WP(C)/28017/2021 Ghasiram Mishra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Barpali College,
Barpali

38. WP(C)/28018/2021 Sunil Kumar Jena 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Kesinga
Mahavidyalaya

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 6 of 50
39. WP(C)/28021/2021 Prasanta Kumar Patel 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of In Dutika Sahu
Degree College

40. WP(C)/28022/2021 Pradeep Kumar Sahoo 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Belpahar Higher
Secondary School

41. WP(C)/28241/2021 Tejaraj Sahu 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Mandosil Junior
College, Mandosil

42. WP(C)/28242/2021 Parameswar Sahoo 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Mandosil Junior
College, Mandosil

43. WP(C)/28244/2021 Baibasuta Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Mandosil Junior
College, Mandosil

44. WP(C)/28247/2021 Surya Narayana Khuntia 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Mandosil Junior
College, Mandosil
45. WP(C)/31670/2021 1.Tribikram Panigrahi 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Parthab Kumar Padhan
Education Department
3. Hemsagar Patel
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Surendra Padhan
3. Governing Body of Swami Vivekananda
5. Surjyavanu Sahu Junior College

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 7 of 50
6. Bandobasta Sahu
7. Sanjaya Kumar Dora
8. Raju Kumar Dora
9. Pramod Kumar Sahu
10. Jibardhan Katar
46. WP(C)/31671/2021 1.Kartik Charan Mishra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Kartikeswar Behera
Education Department
3. Kanhu Charan Rath 2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Anirudha Ojha 3. Governing Body of Beleswar +2
5. Bhagirathi Sahoo Mahavidyalaya
6. Kshamakar Nayak
7. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo
8. Amod Chandra Biswal
9. Avimanyu Sahoo
10. Binod Bihari Sahoo
11. Suresh Kumar Sahoo
47. WP(C)/31678/2021 1.Dambarudhar Patel 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Rabinson Nayak
Education Department
3. Pushpanjali Naik
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Ananda Kumar Keshari
3. Governing Body of Maharshi
5. Bishnupriya Behera Dayananda Junior Mohavidyalaya
6. Kalpana Joshi
7. Arati Pati
8. Dibyasingh Patel
9. Gunamani Patel
10. Dibakar Mohapatra
11. Anantaram Patel
12. Sudhir Kumar Patel
13. Manoranjan Naik
14. Kumud Prakash Panda
15. Ananta Prasad Naik
16. Bharat Kumar
17. Prasanta Kumar Patel
18. Satart Chandra Naik
19. Phanindra Chandra Das
20. Rohit Kumar Patel
21. Sharat Kumar Patel

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 8 of 50
22. Jitendra Naik
23. Judhisthir Patel
48. WP(C)/31683/2021 1.Alekh Chandra Nayak 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Padmanav Mishra
Education Department
3. Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Satyanarayan Padhi
3. Governing Body of Salbani G.P.
5. Kishore Kumar Mishra Higher Secondary School
6. Nirakar Mishra
7. Upendra Kumar Sahu
8. Tapaswinee Acharya
9. Debendra Kumar Palei
10. Mahendra Kumar Barik
49. WP(C)/31739/2021 1.Anadi Charan Sahoo 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Aditya Kumar Jena
Education Department
3. Muralidhar Behera
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Chittaranjan Das
3. Governing Body of Panchayat Higher
5. Sabita Kumari Nayak Secondary School
6. Ajaya Kumar Panigrahi
7. Ananta Charan Sahu
8. Ramesh Chandra Pradhan
9. Madhusudan Dixit
10. Tophan Kumar Samal
11. Prafulla Kumar Jena
50. WP(C)/33404/2021 1.Dileswar Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Bharat Bhusan Nanda
Education Department
3 Reena Biswal
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4 Nirmal Chandra Dash
3. Governing Body of Panchayat Samiti
5 Deepak Kumar Sahoo College
6. Saroj Kumar Pradhan
7. Parameswar Sahu
8. Gagan Bihari Pradhan
9. Prafulla Kumar Pradhan
10. Brahmananda Sahoo
51. WP(C)/34678/2021 Duryodhan Sahu 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 9 of 50
52. WP(C)/34681/2021 Prafulla Kumar Naik 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

53. WP(C)/38543/2021 Sushil Kumar Pardhia 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

54. WP(C)/38545/2021 Sourabha Ranjan Khamari 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

55. WP(C)/38548/2021 Nirupama Rath 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

56. WP(C)/38674/2021 Umakanta Nag 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

57. WP(C)/38919/2021 Hari Shankar Mishra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

58. WP(C)/228/2022 Premananda Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Birupa Degree
College

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 10 of 50
59. WP(C)/6471/2022 1.Ashok Kumar Dash 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Rajkumar Sahu
Education Department
3. Jayanta Biswal,
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Arun Kumar Sahoo
3. Governing Body of Mahimunda
Degree College

60. WP(C)/7470/2022 1.Hrusikesh Sahu 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Banamali Sahu
Education Department
3. Daridra Padhan
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Dilip Kumar Sahu
3. Governing Body of Nabajyoti Higher
5 AkshyaPradhan. Secondary School
6. MinakshiPradhan
7. Subal Pradhan
8. Lalit Patra
9. Bighnaraj Kudei
10. Muni Seth
11. Ananda Kumar Joshi
61. WP(C)/12743/2022 Santosh Kumar Mishra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Anchal Degree
College

62. WP(C)/12751/2022 Pramod Kumar Panigrahi 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Anchal Degree
College

63. WP(C)/12753/2022 Dukhishyam Sahu 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Anchal Degree
College

64. WP(C)/12755/2022 Dr. Ifat Nawaz 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sishu Ananta
Degree College

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 11 of 50
65. WP(C)/12757/2022 Saroj Kumar Naik 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha,
3.Governing Body of Anchal Degree
College
66. WP(C)/12764/2022 Dr. Tusar Kanta Sahu 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Anchal Degree
College
67. WP(C)/12783/2022 1.Bibhudutta Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2.SmitaMohapatra
Education Department
3. ManasaranjanSatapathy
2. Director of Higher Education, Odisha
4. Aditya Kumar Mishra
5. Lingaraj Mishra
6. Dillip Kumar Dalai
68. WP(C)/13018/2022 1.Hrushikesh Mishra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2.Laxmidhar Chinara
Education Department
3. TrilochanaPradhan
2. Director, Higher Education, Heads of
4. Kamaraj Dash Department Building
5. BaidharBehera
6. Akhil Kumar Tripathy
69. WP(C)/15593/2022 1.Prasanta Kumar Panda 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Ashok Kumar Behera
Education Department
3. Sanjib Kumar Ratha
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Guru CharanSahu
3. Governing Body of Trust Fund Degree
5.Abhaya Kumar Sahu College, Bargarh
70. WP(C)/15595/2022 Dr. Chittaranjan Das 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha,
3. Governing Body of Sri Sri Dhabaleswar
College of Science & Technology

71. WP(C)/19653/2022 Pramod Kumar Barik 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Tarini Thakurani
Mahavidyalaya

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 12 of 50
72. WP(C)/19655/2022 GourangaMahanta 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Tarini Thakurani
Mahavidyalaya

73. WP(C)/32340/2022 1.Purusottam Meher 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Pramod Meher
Education Department
3. Bindu Sagar Behera
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Nalini Kanta Pradhan
3. Governing Body of Saswat
5. Shankar Pradhan
Mahavidyalaya
6. Byasadev Dandasena
7. Suresh Chandra Barik
74. WP(C)/37142/2022 1.Girija Sankar Satapathy 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Principal Secretary, Higher Education
2. Dr. Nilamadhab Sahu
Department
3. Gitanjali Pattnayak
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Jugal Kihsore Maharatha
5. Alaka Chandra Nayak
75. WP(C)/7908/2023 Satyanarayan Pattanaik 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3.Governing Body of A.B. Women's
Higher Secondary Schools

76. WP(C)/7911/2023 Niranjan Patra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department

2.Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3.Governing Body of Braja Sundar Higher
Secondary School
77. WP(C)/7913/2023 Mamatarani Panda 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3.Governing Body of Anchalika
Baladevjew Women's Degree College
78. WP(C)/8015/2023 Laxmidhar Samal 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Anchalika
Baladevjew Women's Degree College

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 13 of 50
79. WP(C)/8017/2023 Pradipta Kumar Parida 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Anchalika
Baladevjew Women's Degree College

80. WP(C)/10094/2023 Ashok Kumar Sahoo 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3.Governing Body of Baruneswar Degree
Mahavidyalaya

81. WP(C)/12464/2023 Ranjan Kumar Dhal 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Anchalika
Baladevjew Women's Degree College

82. WP(C)/17461/2023 Manas Purohit 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha,
3. Governing Body of Panchayat Samit
(Junior) College

83. WP(C)/19362/2023 Satyaban Barikee 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai College
of Science & Arts, Kandakhai

84. WP(C)/20212/2023 Sukanta Kumar Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Rukmani Devi
Chilika Mahavidyalaya
85. WP(C)/21877/2023 Subas Chandra Mansingh 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Rukmini Devi
Chilika Mahavidyalaya

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 14 of 50
86. WP(C)/24788/2023 1.Ramesh Chandra Senapati 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Principal Secretary, Higher Education
2. Dr.Ajit Kumar Mishra
Department
3. Dr. Pradip Kumar Sahu
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Sandhyarani Patro
5. Pramoda Kumar Choudhury
87. WP(C)/26587/2023 Santosh Kumar Acharjya 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director Of Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Sonepur Degree
College

88. WP(C)/26852/2023 1.Sanjeeb Kumar Patra 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Pramod Kumar Barad
Education Department
3. Shantanu Kumar Patra
2. Director, Higher Education,Odisha
4. Gobinda Chandra Bhoi
3. Governing Body of Jagannath Degree
5. Kabiraj Bhoi College
6. Sanatan Mishra
7. Madan Lal Panda
8. Arun Kumar Joshi
9. Sadananda Dang
10. Rangadhar Hota
89. WP(C)/26854/2023 1.Himansu Sekhar Barik 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Kishore Kumar Hota
Education Department
3. Gobardhan Bagarty
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Jagannath Degree
College

90. WP(C)/27511/2023 BiswanathBarik 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai
College of Science & Arts, Kandakhai

91. WP(C)/27514/2023 Gopal Kumar Chattopadhya 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai
College of Science and Arts

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 15 of 50
92. WP(C)/27516/2023 Pandava Pradhan 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai
College of Science & Arts, Kandakhai

93. WP(C)/27518/2023 Rangalata Khatei 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai
College of Science & Arts, Kandakhai

94. WP(C)/27519/2023 Rabindranath Panda 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai
College of Science & Arts, Kandakhai

95. WP(C)/27520/2023 Dillip Kumar Dalai 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha,
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai
College of Science & Arts, Kandakhai

96. WP(C)/27521/2023 Pradyumna Kumar Nayak 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
Education Department
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
3. Governing Body of Kandakhai
College of Science & Arts, Kandakhai

97. WP(C)/29383/2023 1.Himadri Bhusan Nayak 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Prasanna Kumar Moharana
Education Department
3. Gagarin Mohanty
2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
4. Maguni Charan Das
3. Governing Body of L.S.S. Higher
5. Snehamanjari Behera Secondary School
6. Tapan Kumar Rout
7. Balaram Gochhayat
8. Kishore Chandra Sahoo
98. WP(C)/29390/2023 1. Rabi Narayan Rath 1.State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher
2. Rama Prasad Mohanty
Education Department
3. Pitambar Sahoo

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 16 of 50
4. Lochan Kumar Pati 2. Director, Higher Education, Odisha
5. Laxmidhar Pradhan 3. Governing Body of Biju Pattnaik
(Junior) College
6. Krushna Ch. Sahoo
7. Sauri Prasad Lenka
8. Sunakar Khuntia
9. Srikanta Kumar Sahoo
10. Ajay Kumar Sahoo
11. Sarada Prasad Mohanty
12. Sarada Prasad Ray
13. Manoranjan Moharana
14. Krishna Prasad Parida
15. Dharanidhar Bastia
16. Bibhuti Bhusan Senapati

Advocates appeared in these cases:
For Petitioners: Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate
Mr. Jayant Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate
Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, Advocate
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Sharmistha Samal, Advocate
Mr. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate

For Opposite Parties: Mr. R.N. Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Mr. Kabiraj Pradhan, Advocate
Mr. Niranjan Swain, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

JUDGMENT

19.09.2024 W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 17 of 50 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.

In the present batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the validity of Sub- Paragraph-1 of Paragraph-4 of the Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 ("2004 Order", in short) mainly on the ground that the same is contrary to the provisions under the Orissa Education Act, 1969 ("1969 Act", in short) and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that paragraph-3(1) and the repealing provision of Paragraphs-4 (1) and (2) of the 2004 Order are ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioners, who claim to be working as Lecturers in different Non-Government Colleges, aided by the State Government have sought for a consequential direction to approve their appointments in accordance with the repealed Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 ("1994 Order", in short), as granted to other staff and employees of 114 Degree Colleges and 39 Junior Colleges of the State.

3. The only legal question which is involved in the present batch of writ petitions filed by the petitioners is, whether this Court should entertain a W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 18 of 50 challenge made to Paragraph 4 (1) of the 2004 Order, despite the law elucidated and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati; (2019) 19 SCC 626, dealing with same provisions.

4. Since all these writ petitions raise common questions of law based on almost identical issues of their rights under the 1994 Order despite its repeal by the 2004 Order, they have been heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.

5. In order to ascertain the background in which the present batch of writ petitions have been filed, it would be apt to narrate few germane foundational facts from the pleadings on behalf of the petitioner in the lead case i.e. W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 (Dinabandhu Das v. State of Odisha and others).

6. The petitioner claims to have been appointed against 1st post of Lecturer in Logic on 04.12.1990 by the then Governing Body of Madhupur College, Kalan in the District of Jajpur, established during the academic session 1983-84. The Governing Body had submitted a proposal to the Director, Higher Education for release of grant-in-aid in terms of 1994 Order. As the College fulfilled the requisite criteria under 1994 Order read with Section 7-C (4) of the 1969 Act, it was declared an aided educational institution with effect from 01.06.1994 on 08.03.1996, in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 (b) of W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 19 of 50 the 1969 Act read with Paragraph 7 (5) of 1994 Order. Approval was accorded in respect of some of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College for release of direct payment of salary cost with effect from 01.06.1994 in terms of 1994 Order. The petitioner's appointment was not approved for release of grant- in-aid, which made him file a writ petition before this Court bearing OJC No.14057 of 1996. During the pendency of the said application, the 2004 Order came into force, repealing 1994 Order. Later, the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 2008 came into force whereby 2004 Order was repealed. Subsequently, another Grant-in-Order, viz., Odisha (Aided Colleges, Aided Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 came into force in terms of which the petitioner's appointment was approved as Lecturer in Logic (1st post) with effect from 01.02.2009. In the year 2014, OJC No.14057 of 1996 filed by the petitioner stood transferred to the State Education Tribunal by virtue of Section 24-B of the 1969 Act, which was disposed of by an order dated 01.02.2018, setting aside the order dated 23.02.2010 whereby the petitioner's appointment was approved as a Lecturer in Logic (1st Post) with effect from 01.02.2009. The Tribunal directed the opposite parties to approve the appointment of the petitioner under 1994 Order. A review application was filed by the State Government seeking review of the said order of the Tribunal which was W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 20 of 50 dismissed on 21.01.2020. The State Government preferred an appeal under Section 24-C of the 1969 Act vide FAO No.514 of 2020 before this Court, which is pending. The State Government has taken one of the grounds in the said FAO No.514 of 2020 that by operation of Paragraph-4 of 2004 Order, grant-in-aid cannot be disbursed as per the 1994 Order. The State Government has placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) wherein the effect of repeal has been elaborately discussed. This is the background in which the petitioners have challenged the vires of Paragraph-4 of 2004 Order itself, in the instant writ petition. The Petitioners, in the other writ petitions too have challenged the validity of Paragraph-4 of the 2004 Order and have claimed that right which had accrued to them under 1994 Order cannot be taken away.

7. We have heard Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel; Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned Senior Counsel; Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel; Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, learned counsel; Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel; Mr. K.K. Swain, learned Counsel; Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel; Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel; Ms. Sharmistha Samal, learned counsel; Mr. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel and Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the opposite party-State of Odisha. W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 21 of 50

8. Before we notice rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties with reference to the challenge in question, we deem it apt to take note of relevant statutory provisions for a clear understanding of the issues involved.

9. By the Odisha Act No.14 of 1993, an amendment was introduced in 1969 Act substituting Section 7 -C which reads as under:

7-C. Grant-in-aid- (1) The State Government shall within the limits of its economic capacity, set apart a sum of money annually for being given as grant-in-aid to private Educational Institution in the State. (2) No order according permission or approval or recognition under this Act, whether prior to or after the commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994, shall entitle any private educational institution to receive grant-in-aid.

(3) Save as otherwise provided, no private Educational Institution which has not been recognised by the State Government under this Act shall be entitled to receive any aid from the State Government.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule, executive order or any judgement, decree or order of any Court, no grant-in-aid shall be paid and no Payment towards salary costs or any other expense shall be made to any private educational institution or for any post or to any person employed in any such institution after the commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994, except in accordance with an order or rule made under this Act.

Grant-in-aid where admissible under the said rule or order, as the case may be, shall be payable from such date as may be specified in that rule or order or from such date as may be determined by the State Government:

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 22 of 50

Provided that pending framing of such rule or issue of order, the State Government may, without prejudice to such rule or order, direct that private educational institutions which were receiving grant-in aid and the posts in such educational institutions in respect of which grant in-aid was being released shall continue to be paid such amount as grant-in-aid as was being paid to them immediately prior to commencement of the Orissa Education (Amendment) Act, 1994. [(4-a) The grant-in-aid to be borne by the State Government on account of placement of a teacher in an aided educational institution receiving University Grants Commission scales of Pay under the Career Advancement Scheme, shall be limited to the extent as may be admissible by computing the period of service rendered by him against an approved post with effect from the date of completion of five years of service against such approved post:

Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as to affect the seniority or any other conditions of service of such a teacher. (4-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court to the contrary, any instructions issued, actions taken or things done on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 in regard to matters provided in Sub-section (4-a) shall be deemed to have been validly issued, taken or done as if the said Sub- section were in force at all material points of time. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule, executive order or any judgement, decree or order of any Court the following categories of private educational institutions shall only be eligible for consideration for payment of grant-in-aid:--

(a) Upper Primary Schools imparting instructions or course prescribed by the State Government to standards or classes VI and VII or Sanskrit Tolls imparting equivalent courses and Madrasas imparting equivalent W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 23 of 50 courses in standards or classes from I to VII or any one or more of such classes.

(b) High Schools imparting instructions or course for High School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa or institutions imparting Madhyama Course of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit University and Madrasas as imparting equivalent course.

(c) Higher Secondary Schools or Junior Colleges imparting instructions or course for Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa or institutions imparting Upasastri course of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit University and Madrasas imparting equivalent course.

(d) Colleges imparting courses for B.A., B.Sc, or B. Com, degrees of the Utkal, Berhampur and Sambalpur Universities and Shastri course of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit University.

(6) No educational institution imparting any other courses of studies except those provided in sub-section (5) shall be eligible for grant-in-aid from Government.

Educational Institutions established and/or managed by Urban Local Bodies, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and Grama Panchayats, Public Sector Undertakings or Companies or Statutory bodies shall not be eligible for grant-in-aid under this Act.

(7) A Governing Body or Managing Committee desirous of availing the facility of grant-in-aid shall make an application for the purpose within such period and shall furnish such information and documents including audited statement of accounts of the institution as may be prescribed. It shall furnish with the application an undertaking to the effect that grant-in-aid sanctioned for the purpose or meeting part or whole of the salary costs shall be disbursed directly to employees concerned and to refund any excess inadmissible payment that may have been made.

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 24 of 50 (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in law, rule, executive order or any judgment, decree or order of any court, the private Educational Institutions covered under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (5) recognized after the 31st March, 2008 shall not be entitled for any Grant-in-Aid from the State Government save as provided in sub-section (9).

(9) The private Educational Institutions referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (5) located in a Grama Panchayat or in a Municipality, which is first recognized after the 31st March, 2011 shall not be entitled for any Grant-in-Aid from the State Government.] (Highlighted for emphasis)

10. In exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 4 of Section 7-C of the 1969 Act, the State Government made the 1994 Order to regulate payment of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions or for any post or to any person employed in such institutions being Non-Government College, Junior College or Higher Secondary School as specified in the said 1994 Order. It is an admitted position that before promulgation of 1994 Order, the benefit of grant- in-aid to non-Government Educational Institutions used to be provided under the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time under the provisions of the 1969 Act. Only after insertion of the provisions contained in Section 7-C of the 1969 Act as noted above, and the 1994 Order that statutory provisions were made to regulating payment of grant-in-aid to the private educational institutions. The 1994 Order was published in the Odisha Gazette on W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 25 of 50 21.11.1994 which provided grant-in-aid to be released to the 'approved posts' only. The categories of the institutions eligible for consideration for being notified as aided educational institutions were mentioned in paragraph-3. Paragraph-4 classified the educational institutions and posts in such institutions. Paragraph-5 of the 1994 order contained a provision that all educational institutions in Category-I (i) of paragraph-4 shall be deemed to be aided educational institutions. However, in respect of Categories-II and III, as per the provision contained in paragraph 5 (2), it was necessary to fulfil the conditions prescribed therein.

11. The State Government, apparently, considering the financial constraints decided to repeal the 1994 Order and substituted it by 2004 Order with effect from 05.02.2004, promulgated in exercise of power under Section 7-C (4) of the 1969 Act. There is significant departure in the policy under the 2004 Order from the 1994 Order. Under the 1994 Order, salary cost was to be given to the staff of the institutions which concept was changed to 'Block Grant' i.e. a grant to be a fixed sum of grant-in-aid determined, by taking into account salary and allowances as on 01.01.2004. The economic capacity of the Government as stipulated in Section 7-C (1) of the 1969 Act became the determinative factor for deciding quantum of Block Grant to the institutions. Paragraph-3 of the 2004 Order reads thus:

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 26 of 50

3. Admissibility of Grant-in-aid- (1) Every private educational institution being a Non-Government College, Junior College or Higher Secondary School which has become eligible by the 1st June, 1994 to be notified as aided educational institution pursuant to the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 shall be notified by the Government as required under Clause (b) of Section 3 of the Act and the institution so notified shall be entitled to receive grant-in-aid, by way of block grant, determined in the manner provided in the sub-para (2):

Provided that a college, in order to be eligible to be notified as an aided educational institution, must not have more than two ministerial staff and two peons. (2) The block grant payable to the private educational institutions under sub-para (1) shall be a fixed sum of grant-in-aid, which shall be determined by taking into account the salaries and allowances, as on the 1st day of January, 2004, of the teaching and non-teaching employees of the educational institution which has become eligible to receive grant-in-aid by the 1st day of June, 1994 in accordance with the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994, but the determination of the quantum of such block grant shall be within the limits of economic capacity of Government as mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 7-C of the Act and shall have no linkage with the salary and allowance payable to any such employee by the Governing Body from time to time.

Provided that no educational institution shall be notified to receive such block grant unless it satisfies the performance criteria as envisaged in Clause (ii) & (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-D of the Act.

(3) The block grant shall be placed, through the Director, at the disposal of the Secretary of the Governing Body of the concerned educational institution proportionately either on quarterly or monthly basis. (4) The Secretary of the Governing Body of each educational institution at whose disposal the block grant W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 27 of 50 is so placed shall utilize the grant in the manner and for the purpose as may be specified by the Director and furnish the utilization certificate thereof at such intervals as may be specified by the Director while releasing such grant.

(5) The block grant shall not be utilized in respect of any post other than those for which the concerned educational institutions has become eligible for grant- in-aid.

(6) Payment of block grant under this Order shall be made with effect from the month of January, 2004 which is payable on or after the 1st day of February, 2004.

(7) No claim on account of grant-in-aid under this Order shall be made or entertained for any period prior to the month of January, 2004.

12. The 1994 Order thus stood repealed by operation of Paragraph-4 of 2004 Order, save for the purposes mentioned in sub-paragraph-(1) of paragraph-3. We consider it beneficial to reproduce paragraph-4 of the 2004 Order, sub- paragraph-(1) of which is under challenge in the present batch of writ petitions, which reads thus:

4. Repeal and saving- (1) The Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 is hereby repealed, save for the purposes mentioned in sub-para (1) of para 3. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub-para (1), the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid from Government under the Order so repealed immediately before the date of commencement of this Order, shall continue to receive such grant-in-

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 28 of 50

aid, as if the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 had not been repealed.

13. Extensive submissions have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners to question the validity of paragraph 4(1) of the 2004 order. However, before addressing those submissions, we consider it apt to notice at this juncture itself, the Supreme Court's decision in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), wherein the provisions of the 2004 Order has been elaborately considered.

14. Following was the question framed at the outset, in the said case:

"Whether the employees are entitled to claim grant-in- aid as admissible under the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1994 Order"), after its repeal in the year 2004 by virtue of provisions contained in the Orissa (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2004 Order"). The 2004 Order has also been repealed by the Orissa (Aided Colleges, Aided Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2008."

15. After having examined paragraph-5 of the 1994 order, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph-6 of its decision as under:

"xxx xxx xxx xxx W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 29 of 50 It is not a matter of right that the institution is entitled to claim grant-in-aid. The provision for grant-in-aid is made in Budget academic year-wise."

16. The Supreme Court, in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), has elaborately considered the effect of repeal of the 1994 order by the 2004 order and has categorically concluded in paragraphs-28 to 33 as under:

"28. The next question which we take up for consideration is concerning the effect of the repeal of the 1994 Order, by the 2004 Order. The provisions contained in Para 4 of the 2004 Order have repealed the 1994 Order save for the purposes in Para 3(1). Para 3(1) provides every private educational institution being a non-government college, junior college or higher secondary school which has become eligible by 1-6- 1994 to be notified as aided educational institution under the 1994 Order, shall be notified by the Government as required under Section 3(b) of the Act and shall be entitled to receive grant-in-aid by way of block grant in the manner provided in Para 3(2). The proviso to Para 3 makes it clear that a college to be eligible as an aided educational institution must not have more than two ministerial staff and two peons. There is no other saving of the 1994 Order. However, Para 4(2) of the 2004 Order provides notwithstanding the repeal of the 1994 Order, the private educational institutions which are in receipt of any grant-in-aid from the Government under the Order so repealed shall continue to receive the grant-in-aid as if the Grant-in- aid Order, 1994 had not been repealed. Thus, it is clear that in case a college is receiving grant-in-aid, with respect to a post, shall continue to receive it under the W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 30 of 50 1994 Order, however, in case it was not receiving the grant-in-aid as saving of the 1994 Order is only entitled for block grant under Para 3(1), not eligible for receiving the grant-in-aid under the 1994 Order. The saving of 1994 Order is for a limited purpose that the institution shall continue to receive grant-in-aid concerning the posts which had been sanctioned before the repeal of the 1994 Order.

29. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also deals with the effect of repeal, which is extracted hereunder:

"6. Effect of repeal.--Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not--

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder;

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 31 of 50 and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed."

30. The provisions contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act stipulate that by the repeal of enactment, the benefit given to the person concerned shall not be affected. However, the repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes place. The previous operation of any enactment or anything duly done or suffered thereunder shall not be affected or any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. However, the best guide is found in what has been saved is by reference to the repealing provisions in the 2004 Order which are clear and unambiguous.

31. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edn. by Justice G.P. Singh, the following observation has been made:

"The distinction between what is, and what is not a right preserved by the provisions of Section 6, General Clauses Act is often one of great fineness [Free Lanka Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.E. Ranasinghe, 1964 AC 541:

(1964) 2 WLR 66 : (1964) 1 All ER 457, 462 (PC); Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557, 570 : AIR 1989 SC 1614, 1621] . What is unaffected by the repeal of a statute is a right acquired or accrued under it and not a mere "hope or expectation of", or liberty to apply for, acquiring a right [Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang, 1961 AC 901 : (1961) 3 WLR 39 : (1961) 2 All ER 721, 731 (PC); Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557 : AIR 1989 SC 1614; Gajraj Singh v. STAT, (1997) W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 32 of 50 1 SCC 650, 672 : AIR 1997 SC 412, 426] . A distinction is drawn between a legal proceeding for enforcing a right acquired or accrued and a legal proceeding for acquisition of a right. The former is saved whereas the latter is not. In construing identical provisions of Section 10 of the Hong Kong Interpretation Ordinance, Lord Morris speaking for the Privy Council observed:"It may be, therefore, that under some repealed enactment, a right has been given, but that, in respect of it, some investigation or legal proceeding is necessary. The right is then unaffected and preserved. It will be preserved even if a process of quantification is necessary. But there is a manifest distinction between an investigation in respect of a right and an investigation which is to decide whether some right should or should not be given. On a repeal, the former is preserved by the Interpretation Act. The latter is not [Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang, 1961 AC 901 : (1961) 3 WLR 39 :

(1961) 2 All ER 721, 731 (PC). Also referred to in Free Lanka Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.E. Ranasinghe, 1964 AC 541 : (1964) 2 WLR 66 : (1964) 1 All ER 457, 462 (PC) [Interpretation of Section 6(3). Ceylon Interpretation Ordinance, 1900]; Isha Valimohamed v. Haji Gulam Mohamad, (1974) 2 SCC 484, 489 : AIR 1974 SC 2061, 2065; M.S. Shivananda v. Karnataka SRTC, (1980) 1 SCC 149, 156 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR 1980 SC 77, 81; Kanaya Ram v. Rajender Kumar, (1985) 1 SCC 436, 441; Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557, 573-74 : AIR 1989 SC 1614, 1623; Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 333, 338 : AIR 1991 SC 2156, 2159; P.V. Mohd.

Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 724, 730 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 777 : AIR 1993 SC 1188, 1192; Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH v. SAIL, (1999) 9 SCC 334, 364-65, 373 : AIR 1999 SC 3923, W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 33 of 50 3942; Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397, 412 : AIR 2001 SC 3580, 3589] ." (AC p. 922) The Lord Chancellor's (Lord Herschell's) observations in an earlier Privy Council case, that "mere right to take advantage of an enactment without any act done by an individual towards availing himself of that right cannot property be deemed a right accrued [Abbott v. Minister for lands, 1895 AC 425, 431 : 72 LT 113 (PC)] ", are not to be understood as supporting the view that if steps are taken under a statute for acquiring a right, the right accrues even if the steps taken do not reach the stage when the right is given [Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang, 1961 AC 901 : (1961) 3 WLR 39 : (1961) 2 All ER 721, 732, 733 (PC)] , nor do the said observations support the view that if no steps are taken for enforcement of a right come into existence, the right is not an accrued right [Sakharam v. Manikchand Motichand Shah, AIR 1963 SC 354, 356, 357 : (1962) 2 SCR 59. See further Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Haridas Mundhra, (1972) 3 SCC 684, 693 : AIR 1972 SC 1826, 1832; Lalji Raja & Sons v. Hansraj Nathuram, (1971) 1 SCC 721, 728 : AIR 1971 SC 974, 979; Zohrabi v. Arjuna, (1980) 2 SCC 203, 204 : AIR 1980 SC 101, 102; Kanaya Ram v. Rajender Kumar, (1985) 1 SCC 436, 441 : AIR 1985 SC 371; Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557, 571 : AIR 1989 SC 1614, 1621, 1622; Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH v. SAIL, (1999) 9 SCC 334, 373-74 :

AIR 1999 SC 3923, 3947, 3948] . As explained by Sinha, C.J., the observations of Lord Herschell are only authority for the proposition that "the mere right, existing at the date of a repealing statute to take advantage of provisions of the statute repealed is not a right accrued [Sakharam v. Manikchand Motichand W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 34 of 50 Shah, AIR 1963 SC 354 : (1962) 2 SCR 59] . Inchoate or contingent rights and liabilities i.e. rights and liabilities which have accrued but which are in the process of being enforced or are yet to be enforced are unaffected for clause (c) clearly contemplates that there will be situations when an investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may have to be continued or resorted to before the right or liability can be enforced [Plewa v. Chief Adjudication Officer, (1995) 1 AC 249 : (1994) 3 WLR 317 : (1994) 3 All ER 323, 331 (HL)] . Such a right or liability is not merely a "hope" which is destroyed by the repeal [Aitken v. South Hams District Council, (1995) 1 AC 262 : (1994) 3 WLR 33 : (1994) 3 All ER 400, 405 (HL)] .

* * * It is submitted that as pointed out by Simon Brown, L.J., the two expressions are generally used in saving legislations to convey the same idea and are not mutually exclusive. Yet a possible distinction may be made between cases where some step, after the Act comes into force, is needed to be taken by the claimant for getting the right and cases where the Act, without anything being further done by the claimant confers the right. In the former class of cases, it would be a right acquired after the necessary step is taken whereas in the latter class of cases it would be a right accrued by mere force of the Act.

* * * The right of a tenant, who has the land for a certain number of years and who has personally cultivated the same for that period "to be deemed to be protected tenant" under the provisions of a statute has been held to be an accrued right which will survive the repeal of W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 35 of 50 the statute [Sakharam v. Manikchand Motichand Shah, AIR 1963 SC 354 : (1962) 2 SCR 59] . Similarly, a right conferred by an Act that every lease shall be deemed to be for a period of ten years is a right acquired and will be unaffected by repeal of the Act [Hiralal Parbhubhai v. Nagindas Atmaram Khatri, AIR 1966 SC 367 : (1964) 6 SCR 773. For other vested rights in the context of landlord and tenant, see Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula v. Motibhai Nagjibhai, AIR 1966 SC 459 :

(1966) 1 SCR 367] . But the so-called right of a statutory tenant to protection against eviction under Control of Eviction Act is mere advantage and not a right in the real sense and does not continue after repeal of the Act. [Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board, Bareilly, (1974) 1 SCC 202 : AIR 1974 SC 396. The same result will follow if the Act ceases to apply to certain tenancies by an amendment made by the legislature or by a notification issued by the Government in exercise of a power conferred by the Act : D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 104; Parripati Chandrasekharrao & Sons v. Alapati Jalaiah, (1995) 3 SCC 709 : AIR 1995 SC 1781. (Even pending proceedings will be affected); Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397 : AIR 2001 SC 3580 (pending proceedings will be affected).] Similarly on the reasoning that the right of a tenant to get standard rent fixed and not to pay contractual rent in excess of standard rent under a Rent Control Act is only a protective right and not a vested right, it has been held that when during the pendency of an application for fixation of standard rent, the Act is amended and it ceases to apply to the premises in question, the application is rendered incompetent and has to be dismissed as infructuous. [Vishwant Kumar v. Madan W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 36 of 50 Lal Sharma, (2004) 4 SCC 1, 4-5 : AIR 2004 SC 1887, 1888-89] * * * The option given to a grantee to make additional purchases of Crown land on fulfilment of certain conditions under the provisions of the statute was held to be not an accrued right when the statute was repealed before the exercise of the option. [Abbott v. Minister for lands, 1895 AC 425, 431 : 72 LT 113 (PC)] A privilege to get an extension of a licence under an enactment is not an accrued right and no application can be filed after the repeal of the enactment for renewal of the licence. [Reynolds v. Attorney General for Nova Scotia, 1896 AC 240 : 65 LJ PC 16 : 74 LT 108 (PC). See further Gajraj Singh v. STAT, (1997) 1 SCC 650, 666 : AIR 1997 SC 412, 422 (The text in this book from 6th Edn., p. 418 is quoted).] * * * The right or privilege to claim benefit of condonation of delay is not an accrued right under a repealed provision when the delay had not occurred before the repeal of the said provision. [Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 333, 340 : AIR 1991 SC 2156, 2160] The right of pre-emption conferred by an Act it is remedial right or in other words, a right to take advantage of an enactment for acquiring a right to land or other property and cannot be said to have been acquired or accrued until a decree is passed and does not survive if the Act is repealed before passing of the final decree. [Nirmaladevi v. Anardevi, 1971 SCC W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 37 of 50 OnLine MP 53 : AIR 1973 MP 120 approved in Krishna Dass Agarwal v. Kanhaiyalal, (1996) 9 SCC 488 : AIR 1996 SC 3464] The right of a government servant to be considered for promotion in accordance with existing rules is not a vested right and does not survive if the Government takes a policy decision not to fill up the vacancy pending revision of the rules and the revised rules which repeal the existing rules do not make him eligible for promotion. [K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59, 67 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 625 : AIR 1997 SC 1803, 1808] General savings of rights accrued, and liabilities incurred under a repealed Act by force of Section 6, General Clauses Act, are subject to a contrary intention evinced by the repealing Act. [Karam Singh Sobti v. Pratap Chand, AIR 1964 SC 1305, 1309, para 10 : (1964) 4 SCR 647; Ishverlal Thakorelal Almaula v. Motibhai Nagjibhai, AIR 1966 SC 459, 466 :

(1966) 1 SCR 367] In case of a bare repeal, there is hardly any room for a contrary intention; [ By a subsequent statute a penal section in an earlier statute ceased to have effect and was also repealed. It was held that even such a double repeal did not show a contrary intention and prevent prosecution for an offence committed before the repeal; R. v. West London Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Simeon, (1983) 1 AC 234 :

(1982) 3 WLR 289 : (1982) 2 All ER 813 (HL)] but when the repeal is accompanied by fresh legislation on the same subject, the provisions of the new Act will have to be looked into to determine whether and how far the new Act evinces a contrary intention affecting the operation of Section 6, General Clauses Act. [State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, AIR 1955 SC 84, 88 : 1955 Cri W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 38 of 50 LJ 254 : (1955) 1 SCR 893; Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, AIR 1956 SC 77, 83 : (1955) 2 SCR 1117; Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. v. Janardan Ramchandra Kulkarni, AIR 1960 SC 794, 795 : (1960) 3 SCR 85; Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator-General of W.B., AIR 1960 SC 936, 938, 939, para 7 : (1960) 3 SCR 578; State of Kerala v. N. Sami Iyer, AIR 1966 SC 1415, 1417-18; Jayantilal Amrathlal v. Union of India, (1972) 4 SCC 174, 178 : AIR 1971 SC 1193, 1196; T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177, 189 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 143 : AIR 1983 SC 150, 156; Bansidhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557, 567 : AIR 1989 SC 1614, 1619; Manphul Singh Sharma v. Ahmedi Begum, (1994) 5 SCC 465, 469; D. Srinivasan v. Commr., (2000) 3 SCC 548 : AIR 2000 SC 1250, 1255. For the construction of a saving clause which opens with the words 'Save as expressly provided in this Act', see S.N. Kamble v. Sholapur Borough Municipality, AIR 1966 SC 538 : (1966) 1 SCR 618. For a saving clause which preserves old rights but applies new procedure, see Ramchandra v. Tukaram, AIR 1966 SC 557 : (1966) 1 SCR 594] ... When a saving clause in a new Act is comprehensively worded and is detailed, it may be possible to infer that it is exhaustive and expresses an intention not to call for the application of Section 6, General Clauses Act. [Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT, AIR 1968 SC 162, 168 : (1967) 3 SCR 833; ITO v. M. Damodar Bhat, AIR 1969 SC 408, 412 :

(1969) 2 SCR 29; Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 1, para 34(f) : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 620 : (2008) 13 Scale 398. But see Tiwari Kanhaiyalal v. CIT, (1975) 4 SCC 101 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 312 : 1975 SCC (Tax) 214 : AIR 1975 SC 902, which holds that the detailed savings contained in W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 39 of 50 Section 297 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not exhaustive. Recourse, in this case, was taken to Section 6, General Clauses Act for holding that a person's liability for an offence under Section 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 continued even after its repeal.

In CIT v. Shah Sadiq & Sons, (1987) 3 SCC 516, 524 :

1987 SCC (Tax) 270 : AIR 1987 SC 1217. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was again applied to continue the right of set-off accrued under Section 24(2) of the 1922 Act after its repeal by the 1961 Act.] "

32. It is apparent from the aforesaid discussion that what is unaffected by the repeal of a statute is a right acquired or accrued and not mere hope or expectation of or liberty to apply for acquiring a right. There is a distinction in making an application for acquiring a right. If under some repealed enactment, a right has been given, but on investigation in respect of a right is necessary whether such right should be or should not be given, no such right is saved. Right to take advantage of a provision is not saved. After repeal, an advantage available under the repealed Act to apply and obtain relief is not a right which is saved when the application was necessary and it was discretionary to grant the relief and investigation was required whether relief should be granted or not. The repeal would not save the right to obtain such a relief. The right of pre-emption is not an accrued right. It is a remedial right to take advantage of an enactment. The right of a government servant to be considered for promotion under repealed rules is not a vested right unless the repeal provision contains some saving and right has been violated earlier.

33. In general savings of the rights accrued under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are subject to a W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 40 of 50 contrary intention evinced by the repealing Act. It depends upon the repealing provisions what it keeps alive and what it intends to destroy when repeal and saving clause is comprehensively worded, then the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are not applicable.

(Emphasis added)

17. The Supreme Court has further held in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) that there was no absolute right conferred under the 1994 Order, and given a clear provision contained in paragraph-4 of the 2004 Order, repealing and saving the 1994 Order, no such right is saved 'in case grant-in-aid was not being received at the time of repeal'. The provisions of the 1994 order of applying and/or pending applications were not saved nor did it provide that by applying under the repeal of the 1994 Order, its benefit can be claimed. The grant was annual, based on budgetary provisions. The applications were required to be filed timely. As several factors prevailing at that time were to be seen, in no case, the provision could be invoked after repeal of the 1994 Order.

The Supreme Court in uncertain terms has held that only block grant can be claimed.

18. After having examined various provisions of Section 7(C) of the 1994 Order, the Supreme Court, in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), has held that the institutions which receive grant-in-aid and post with respect of which W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 41 of 50 the grant-in-aid was being released, have been saved. The reference of the institution means and includes the post and they cannot be read in isolation. Clarifying it further, the Supreme Court has held as under:

"xxx xxx xxx xxx It cannot be said that right to claim grant-in-aid has been fixed, accrued, settled, absolute or complete at the time of repeal of the 2004 Order."

(See para-37)

19. Leaving no scope of doubt on the point of effect of the repeal Order 2004, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph-38 and 49 as follows:

"38. Thus, there was no vested, accrued or absolute right to claim grant-in-aid under the Act or the 1994 Order. Merely fulfilment of the educational criteria and due appointment were not sufficient to claim grant-in-aid. There are various other relevant aspects, fulfilment thereof and investigation into that was necessary. Merely by fulfilment of the one or two conditions, no right can be said to have accrued to obtain the grant-in-aid by the institution concerning the post or individual. No right has been created in favour of colleges/individual to claim the grant-in-aid under the 1994 Order, after its repeal. No claim for investigation of right could have been resorted to after repeal of the 1994 Order.

49. It is apparent on consideration of Para 4 of the 2004 Order that only saving of the right is to receive the block grant and only in case grant-in-aid had been received on or before the repeal of the 2004 Order, it shall not be W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 42 of 50 affected and the 1994 Order shall continue only for that purpose and no other rights are saved. Thus, we approve the decision of the High Court in Loknath Behera on the aforesaid aspect for the aforesaid reasons mentioned by us."

(Underscored for emphasis)

20. In our considered opinion, in view of the law as clearly propounded by the Supreme Court in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), the challenge by the petitioners to the vires of paragraph-4(1) of the 2004 Order cannot be entertained by this Court in the present proceedings.

21. It is not in dispute that if the petitioners fail to successfully challenge the aforesaid paragraph-4(1) of the 2004 Order, they shall not be entitled to any relief in the present proceeding.

22. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made an attempt, though feeble, placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Arnab Kumar Swain v. State of Odisha; AIR 2014 Ori 116, whereby a division Bench decision in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha; 2003 (I) OLR 91 has been affirmed. Further, the decision in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) was not interfered with in an appeal preferred by the State of Odisha which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 18.08.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.4389 of 2006. It W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 43 of 50 has been argued by Mr. Routray, applying the doctrine of merger, that the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) became the judgment of the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the said civil appeal by an order dated 10.08.2010. The said order being earlier in point of time having not been referred to by a division Bench of equal strength while deciding the case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), the judgment in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) should prevail.

Mr. Routray has relied on the Supreme Court's decision in case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.; 2019 (4) SCC 376 (paragraph-24), to contend that once leave to appeal had been granted and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked, the order passed in the appeal would attract the doctrine of merger. The submission so advanced by Mr. Routray is unexceptionable. However, the said submission does not come to his aid as the said order of the Supreme Court cannot be considered to be laying down law directly on the point of the rights accrued under the 1994 order as is being claimed in the present batch of writ applications. He has placed reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in case of Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference; 2023 INSC 804 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi; 2017 (6) W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 44 of 50 SCC 680 to contend that when there are conflicting judgments of equal strength of the Supreme Court, the earlier judgment has to be followed.

23. The said submission has been advanced to be rejected as we do not find any conflicting judgments on the point of the effect of repeal under paragraph- 4(1) of the 2004 Order. It would be profitable to notice at this juncture, in support of our view, the Supreme Court's order dated 18.08.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No.4389 of 2006, reliance on which has been placed by Mr. Routray, whereby the Supreme Court declined to interfere with this Court's decision in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra), which reads as under:

"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Applications for intervention are allowed. We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa.

In our considered view, no interference is called for. These appeals are devoid of any merit.

We, however, direct the appellant to decide the case of the respondents as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within four months from the date of communication of this order.

This appeal, is accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 45 of 50

24. Notably, it has been stated in the Supreme Court's decision in case of Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi reported in (1996) 6 SCC 44 that it is not everything said in the judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided, and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it, the ratio decidendi. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. Clarifying the principle further, the Supreme Court held that the concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on consideration of judgment in relation to the subject- matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. Relevant portion of Paragraph-9 of the said decision in case of Dhanwanti Devi (supra) is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"9. xxx.The concrete decision alone is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject-matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.xxx"

25. It is settled rule of precedent that only principle laid down in the judgment that is a binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 46 of 50

26. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.34772 of 2020 (Kamalakanta Pradhan v. State of Odisha) has argued that the decision in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) does not cover the case of the petitioners for the reason that in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), the claim of the respondent was found to be belated whereas in the present case, the petitioners' case was recommended by the governing body before repeal of the 1994 Order and the petitioners had approached the Court in 1998. He has submitted that the right of the parties stood crystallized on the date they approached the Court and their rights are to be determined as on the date of filing of the case. He has referred to the Supreme Court's decision in case of Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P.; 2003 (1) SCC 726.

27. The present batch of writ petitions have been taken up by a Division Bench of this Court to consider validity of a statutory provision i.e. Paragraph 4(1) of the 2004 Order. We are considering the said challenge in the wake of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra). Neither this Court nor any authority can take a view different from that taken in Anup Kumar Senapati (supra). If according to a person, any of his rights survives under the 1994 Order despite decision rendered in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), he will be at liberty to pursue the same in appropriate W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 47 of 50 forum. We are not inclined to enter into such dispute in the present batch of cases, wherein validity Paragraph 4 (1) of the 2004 Order is under challenge.

28. Mr. Chandrakanta Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24237 of 2019 (Tarakanta Choudhury and others v. State of Odisha and others) while adopting the submissions advanced by Mr. Routray and Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsels, has submitted that the decision rendered in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court had attained finality as Civil Appeal against the said decision preferred by the State Government of Odisha came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court, which aspect has not been noticed by the Supreme Court in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra). It is significant to note that in this case also the services of the petitioners said to be working in Birupa Degree College, Indupur were not approved under 1994 Order till the said Order was in operation before its repeal by 2004 Order. Seven years after the 2004 Order was issued, repealing 1994 Order, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.18902 of 2011 which was disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioners' representation. The petitioners' claim for grant-in-aid in terms of 1994 Order was rejected. Since the petitioners' claim was not being considered for grant-in-aid under 1994 Order because of its repeal by 2004 Order, the vires of 2004 Order has been challenged.

W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 48 of 50

29. Almost identical is the case in W.P.(C) No.34772 of 2020. The petitioner's claim has been denied in view of the Supreme Court's decision in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra).

30. We do not find any force in the said submission for the reason that the Supreme Court in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), had the occasion to deal directly with the 2004 Order, particularly, with reference to paragraph-4(1) thereof. Since the Supreme Court in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra), has interpreted and elaborately considered the effect of repeal under paragraph-4(1) of the 2004 Order, by no stretch of imagination, the division Bench decision of this Court in case of Prafulla Kumar Sahoo (supra) can be considered to prevail, applying the doctrine of merger consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court as it had no occasion to deal with the 2004 Order.

31. The submission that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) should be ignored by this Court in view of dismissal of civil appeal by the Supreme Court in case of State of Odisha and others v. Prafulla Kumar Sahoo and another is manifestly untenable. This is primarily for the reason that 2004 Order was not under consideration by the Supreme Court in case of State of Odisha and others v. Prafulla Kumar Sahoo and another. Further, no right can be said to have accrued in favour of these W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 49 of 50 petitioners under 1994 Order merely on an assertion that they were appointed prior to coming into force of 2004 Order.

32. For the reasons noted above, we do not find any merit in the present batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of Paragraph-4 (1) of the 2004 Order in view of the Supreme Court's decision in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra).

33. All these writ petitions to the extent the same relate to challenge to validity of Paragraph-4 (1) of the 2004 Order stand dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

34. It will, however, be open for the petitioners to pursue their claims before the appropriate forum, if so advised, in relation to their such rights which are irrespective of repeal of the 1994 Order by the 2004 Order and the Supreme Court's decision in case of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra).

35. There shall be no order as to costs.




                                                                  (Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
                                                                        Chief Justice

         M.S. Raman, J.                        I agree.

                                                                        (M.S. Raman)
                                                                           Judge

                        Signature Not Verified
S.K. Guin/PA               Digitally Signed

S. Behera/Sr. Stenographer Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Sep-2024 11:58:04 W.P.(C) No.34769 of 2020 and batch Page 50 of 50

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court