Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has quashed the order to disengage 15 employees following the closure of State Institute of Educational Technology (SIET) in 2013.
Justice Sashikanta Mishra directed the state authorities to adjust the petitioners against available vacancies in any department or directorate granting them continuity of service and other service benefits. “Necessary orders in this regard should be passed within three months from the date of communication of this judgment or production of certified copy thereof,” Justice Mishra added in the April 25 order.
The SIET, operating under State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) since 1980 to enhance primary and secondary education through audio-visual programs, was granted autonomous status by the state government on January 1, 1990, following a recommendation from the Centre. Prior to the formation of SIET, the Centre had sanctioned the creation of 120 posts, while the state government created 118 posts under the INSAT scheme at various times.
On April 29, 2013, the state government decided to shut down SIET, terminating several employees.
On May 7, 2013, 15 of the disengaged employees filed petitions, arguing that the termination was discriminatory since 63 other employees were reassigned to various government departments as if on deputation.
“The attempt of the state to distinguish the petitioners from the 63 employees, if permitted, would entail creation of a class within a class, which cannot be countenanced in law… If the 63 employees were adjusted against different posts by applying the legal fiction of deputation, there is no reason why the petitioners should also not be appointed in similar fashion,” Justice Mishra ruled.
The state government had contended that only 63 employees appointed to 118 posts created between 1983-1988, were duly recruited by December 31,1989 and were treated as govt employees. Employees engaged after Jan 1, 1990, were treated as autonomous employees as their engagement was temporary and subject to continuance of the scheme. Therefore, there is no question of any discrimination.
