http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UPENDRA PRADHAN AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1993

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1198            1993 SCR  (3) 475  1993 SCC  Supl.  (3)  14 JT 1993 (3)   524  1993 SCALE  (2)808

ACT: % Orissa Education Act 1969: Section   10A-Termination  of  service   of   Teacher-School recognised not aided-Applicability of the provision-Validity of Termination Order.

HEADNOTE: The  services  of  the appellants  were  terminated  by  the Management of a recognised school.  The termination was  not approved by the Inspector of Schools.  The appellants  filed a writ petition before the High Court for reinstatement  and salaries   from  the  date  the  school  became   an   aided institution.   The  High  Court having  dismissed  the  writ petition, appellants preferred the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD:     Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act  provides that  the termination of a teacher of an  aided  institution shall  be  subject  to  the approval  of  the  Inspector  of Schools.   Use  of  the word  ’aided  institution’  is  dear indication that the provisions of approval apply only to the aided  schools.   Since  on the date  the  services  of  the appellants  were terminated the institution  was  recognised only  and not aided, the Inspector could not have  exercised the power of disapproval.  Recognition of a institution  for purposes  of imparting education is different than  bringing It   on  grants-in-aid.   To  the  former   the   regulatory provisions of the Education Act or the rules do, not  apply. The Education Department has no control either on  admission of students or members of staff. (476-D-F)

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2476 of 1993. From  the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.1992 of  the  Orissa High Court in O.J.S. No. 4866 of 1991. 476 R. K. Mehta for the Appellants. H.L. Aggarwal, S.K. Patri, Abhijat P. Medh, Ms. Kirti Mishra and A.K. Panda for the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The following Order of the Court was delivered Service of the appellants employed in the school established in the year 1981 recognised in 1983 brought on grants-in-aid in 1988, were terminated in 1986.  Their termination was not approved  by the Inspector of Schools.  Since the order  not approving  termination  was  not  given  effect  to  by  the Institution the appellants approached the High Court by  way of  a  writ petition for a mandamus to  reinstate  them  and grant them their salaries from the date the school became an aided institution.  The High Court did not find any merit in the claim for various reasons. Section  10-A of the Orissa Education Act provides that  the termination  of a teacher of an aided institution  shall  be subject  to the approval of the Inspector.  Use of the  word ’aided institution’ is clear indication that the  provisions of  approval apply only to the aided schools.  Since on  the date  the  services of the appellants  were  terminated  the institution was recognised only and not aided the  Inspector could   not  have  exercised  the  power   of   disapproval. Consequently no right vested in the appellant which he could get  enforced  in a court of law.  The submission  that  the principle of Section 10-A being benevolent in nature  should be extended to teachers of the institution once it has  been granted   recognition  to  avoid  exploitation   and   undue harassment of those who are unequal in the bargain cannot be accepted.   Recognition  of an institution  for  purpose  of imparting education is different than bringing it on grants- in-aid.   To  the former the regulatory  provisions  of  the Education  Act  or the rules do not  apply.   The  Education Departments  has no control either on admission of  students or  members  of staff.  The High Court, therefore.  did  not commit any error of law in dismissing the writ petition. The  appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.   But  there shall be no order as Appeal dismissed. 477