Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Alakananda Sahu @ Jena vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 July, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 233

Author: A.K.Rath

Bench: A.K.Rath

                        HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

                                WP(C) No.5036 of 2018

     In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of
     India.
                                     -----------

     Alakananda Sahu @ Jena                          ....                      Petitioner

                                                 Versus

     State of Odisha & others                        ....                 Opposite parties


             For Petitioner              ...       Mr. Binod Madhab Dutta, Adv.

             For Opp. Parties            ...       Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, S&ME


     PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH

     Date of hearing:   13.07.2018           :            Date of judgment: 13.07.2018

Dr. A.K.Rath, J By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution
     of India, challenge is made to the order dated 3.10.2016 passed by
     the District Education Officer, Balasore, opposite party no.4, vide
     Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder the application of the
     petitioner for appointment under the rehabilitation scheme has been
     rejected.
     2.          Sadananda       Jena,       husband        of   the   petitioner,   was
     functioning as Headmaster-in-charge in Khyama Radhashyam High
     School, Chhada in the district of Balasore. His service was approved
     on 1.4.2008. He was receiving grant-in-aid (block grant) pursuant to
     the notification dated 27.09.2008 issued by the Government of
     Orissa in its School and Mass Education Department. While matter
     stood thus, he expired on 24.01.2016. He was the sole bread earner
     of his family. After his demise, the family received a setback. The
                                    2




petitioner filed an application on 23.09.2016 to appoint her under
the rehabilitation scheme. The same was rejected on 3.10.2016, vide
Annexure-1,   on    the   ground   that   there   is   no   provision   for
appointment under the rehabilitation scheme to the employees of
Block Grant High Schools.
3.         Heard Mr. Binod Madhab Dutta, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for
the School and Mass Education.
4.         Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the husband of the petitioner was functioning as Headmaster-in-
charge in Khyama Radhashyam High School, Chhada. He died
leaving behind his widow (petitioner) and daughter. After his death,
the family received a setback. The application of the petitioner was
rejected on untenable 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-
                                       3




           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 applies proprio vigore to the facts of the
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 District Education Officer, Balasore,
opposite party no.4, for re-consideration in accordance with law.
7.         The petition is allowed.



                                                    .............................
                                                    DR. A.K.RATH, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated 13th July, 2018/ BKB-PKS