Mukunda Dehury vs State Of Odisha And Another

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Nath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, who seeks relief of financial benefit as untrained Regular Teacher with effect from 1st August, 2013 being date of completion of six years of service, till regular appointment was made on 20th February, 2015. He seeks this relief on his contention that order dated 24th November, 2017 is to be quashed.

He submits, in paragraph 3 of impugned order it was said that as per terms of regularization decided by the Government, petitioner would have been appointed as Regular Primary School Teacher just after completion of six years of service in year 2013 but, as he had no training qualification, his claim for regularization was not considered on basis of Government Resolution dated 1st August, 2011. He submits further, subsequent to resolution dated 1st August, 2011 there was circular dated 25th  September, 2012, by which all Collectors-cum-CEO, Zillaparisad were told that the Government after careful consideration had decided that all untrained junior teachers, such as his client, who completed three years by 31st July, 2011 may be appointed as regular Primary School Teacher subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down in resolution dated 1st August, 2011, except training criteria. Training for such untrained junior teachers were to be ensured as had by 31st March, 2015. He relies on paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of his client's petition to demonstrate that petitioner completed training course on 20th February, 2015.

Mr. Acharya, learned advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the department and draws attention to paragraph 14 in the counter wherein following has been said:

"14. That, as the applicant being an untrained Junior Teacher has completed the period of six years of his continuous satisfactory services after the stipulated dateline i.e. 31.07.2011, consideration of his claim for regularization of his services in the context of completion of six years of services is different from the other SS/JT annexed at Anjnexure-5. Moreover consideration of the claims of the applicant in comparison to the claims of the SS/JT listed at Annexure-5 is completely violation of the provision made by the Government in Resolution No-15107/SME/Dt.01.08.2011 and clarification letter No-24588/SME/Dt-25.09.2012 within the limitation of RTE Act-2009."

It appears from paragraph 14 in the counter that the circular relied upon by petitioner is also relied upon by the department on calling the same clarification by letter dated 25th September, 2012. By that circular, untrained teachers were to be given regularization upon their completing three years of satisfactory service. The condition was, training to be obtained thereafter and by 31st March, 2015. Petitioner in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the petition asserted that he completed his training as on 20th February, 2015. There is no specific denial of the assertion as in paragraph 4 of the counter, following was said:

"4. That, without answering each of the paragraphs this respondent craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to ventilate the legal truth involve in the matter for better appreciation of this Hon'ble Tribunal."

The writ petition succeeds. Prayer of petitioner is allowed on quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 24th November, 2017. The benefits to be paid to petitioner must be the same in annexures 5 and 6 of the writ petition being office orders dated 6th December, 2012 and 21st September, 2013. There must be compliance by disbursement within four weeks of communication of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of.

..............................