ORDER
1. Heard Sri S. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
2. The order of the State Government dated 14.1.2002 disallowing the proposal of the college for validation of the services of the petitioner under the Validation Act, 1998, in Annexure-7 is assailed in this writ petition.
3. Section 24-B of the Orissa Education Act reads as follows:
24-B. Adjudication by Tribunal! 1) The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate all disputes and differences, between the Managing Committee or, as the case may be, the Governing Body of any private educational institution and any teacher or employee of such institution or the State Government or any officer in any authority of the said Government, relating to or connected with the eligibility, entitlement, payment or non-payment of grant-in-aid.
(2) Any person, aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter within jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
(3) On receipt of an application under Sub-section (2), the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary that the application is a fit case for adjudication by it, admit such application, but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons :
Provided that no application before the Tribunal seeking a claim of grant-in-aid against the State Government or any officer or authority of the said Government shall be admitted, unless the applicant has served a notice on the State Government or concerned officer or authority furnishing the details of the claim and a period of two months has expired from the date of receipt of the said notice by the State Government or, as the case may be, the concerned officer or authority”.
4. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 24-B of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order appertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to make an application to the Tribunal for redressal of the grievance; Sub-section (1) contemplates that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate all disputes and differences between the Managing Committee, or as the case may be, the Governing Body of any private educational institution or any teacher or employee of the State Government or the State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government and relating to or connected with eligibility, entitlement, payment or non-payment of grant-in-aid. The proposal for validation of the petitioner’s appointment under the Validation Act was mooted by the College for the purpose of validation in order to make the petitioner eligible and entitled to payment of grant-in-aid. In similar other case also, this Court has taken the view that such a matter is governed within the scope of Section 24-B of the Act and, as such, the aggrieved party is to move the Tribunal in application under Section 24-B of the Act. The learned counsel has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and Ors. v. Joginder Patjoshi and Anr., 2003 (8) Supreme 298 to contend that while interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate and if a provision of law is misused or subjected to abuse of the process of law, it is the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if necessary. However, it is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, then the Court must give effect to the words used in the statute and it would not be open-to the Courts to adopt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. We are not able, to appreciate, how this decision supports the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in State of Orissa and Anr. v. Pratap Kumar Nayak and Anr., 93 (2002) C.L.T. 79 (SC) in support of his contention, but in our considered opinion, the decision is totally inapplicable to the fact of the present case.
5. The language of the Statute under Section 24-B (1) and (2) read together with the proviso thereto makes it abundantly clear that an aggrieved person, whose case for approval or validation of appointment or otherwise is rejected, disenabling him from the benefits of grant-in-aid has to approach the Tribunal under the said provision for redressal of his grievance. The order of the Tribunal also is subject to appeal to this Court under Section 24-C of the Act.
6. In such view of the matter, when a statutory efficacious, remedy is available as against the impugned order by way of an application before the State Education Tribunal, a writ petition would not be maintainable and entertained. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition in limine. Consequently, Misc. Case No. 1423 of 2002 stands dismissed.
