Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UPENDRA PRADHAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

Decided
30 April 1993
Judges listed
R.M. SAHAI, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 475 · 1993 INSC 175

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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

p. 476

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.

p. 476

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 provi\ions. 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

p. 476, margin C

in the appeliant 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. R~ognition of an institution for purpose of imparting education is different than bringing it on grants-in-aid. To the former the regulatory provisions

p. 476, margin D

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. The High Court, therefore, did not conunit any error of law in dismissing the writ petition.

p. 476, margin E

The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as

p. 476, margin F

lO.QOSts.

p. 476, margin G

GN. Appeal dismissed.

p. 476, margin G