Appeal No 2476 of 1993
From the Judgment and Order dated 2121992 of the Orissa High Court in OJS No 4866 of 1991
476 R K Mehta for the Appellants
HL Aggarwal SK Patri Abhijat P Medh Ms Kirti Mishra and AK Panda for the Respondents
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


Summary:
The private respondent was appointed as sales girl with the petitioner
The new manager not only insulted humiliated and he her he also terminated her services
On ber plea the Assistant Registrar who decided the case after seven years held the Impugned order as Illegal arbitrary and passed without obtaining the requisite approval
He ordered reinstatement of the private respondent but did am grant back wages
The petitioner Informed the private respondent that her joining report could not be entertained
The letter was forced to approach the appellate and revising authorities the labour court and finally the High Court for back wages and other benefits
The petitioner approached this court to assail well reasoned finding recorded by the High Court without the least regard of the financial implications
Meanwhile as the petitioner was unable to persuade this courtes of the case the petitioner made attempt to highlight the financial difficulties in payment of back wages
Surendra Kumar Varma and others vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court New Delhi  Anr   referred to
The petitioner urged that the private respondent had been pursuing the 478  remedy for 16 years
And the profit margin of the petitioner being very low and the overhead expenses high
The State and the Centre who granted financial assistance for rehabilitation subject to the condition that the amount be not paid towards past debts would be rendered in serious predicament
On facts this court found that it was the petitioner who was not complying with the orders passed by the authorities from time to time so there was no justification for exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner
Dismissing the SLP and upholding the order of the High Court this Court HELD Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not only of the Officer who terminated the services of the private respondent but also due to cantankerous attitude adopted by those who were responsible for pursuing the litigation and literally persecuted her
Working life of the private respondent has been lost for more than twenty years
While considering the agony and suffering the amount of back wages exceeding three lakhs could not be a proper recompense
And the reinstatement of the private respondent could not be considered as bonafide conduct for modification of the order of back wages
480 D Leaving it open to the petitioner to replenish itself and recover the amount of back wages from personal salary of its officers who were responsible for the endless litigation and for terminating the services of the private respondents this Court clarified that this permission shall have nothing to do with the direction and the step for recovery be taken only after payment of back wages to the private respondent
480 G