HC quashes termination of 15 employees of closed SIET
Cuttack:
Orissa high court
has quashed the order of disengagement of 15 employees issued with the closure of
State Institute of Educational Technology
(SIET) on April 29, 2013.
In a recent order, Justice Sashikanta Mishra directed the state authorities "to adjust the petitioners against available vacancies in any department/directorate of the state govt 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.
According to case records, the govt initiated the 'Educational Television' programme, commonly known as ETV, under direct control of the State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) in 1980. State govt conferred it autonomous status and renamed it as SIET on Jan 1, 1990 on suggestion of the Centre.
Prior to the formation of SIET, the Centre had sanctioned the creation of 120 posts. Subsequently, the state govt created 118 posts under the INSAT scheme at different times. However, state govt declared SIET as defunct/closed on April 29, 2013.
The batch of petitions were filed on May 7, 2013. Senior advocates Jagannath Patnaik and Tarunkanta Pattnayak argued on behalf of the petitioners. The disengagement was highly discriminatory since 63 other employees of SIET were relocated in various govt departments by treating them to be on deputation, it was argued.
Disposing of the petitions on April 25, Justice Mishra held that the petitioners having been appointed against substantive posts created by the govt after Jan 1, 1990 and continuing in service for more than two decades, cannot be disengaged by treating them differently than employees appointed earlier.
"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," Justice Mishra ruled.
"The petitioners and the 63 employees stand on the same footing except for the condition of their appointment being co-terminus with the scheme. 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 observed.
State govt had stated though 118 posts were created between 1983-1988, only 63 employees were duly recruited by Dec 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. The 63 employees appointed against sanctioned posts were repatriated and accommodated in different posts as their continuance was not dependent on the central scheme. Rather, they were appointed against posts created and sanctioned prior to grant of autonomous status to SIET on Jan 1, 1990. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any parity with these 63 employees, state govt had contended.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
86 Kolhan villages oppose Icha-Kharkai reservoir project
Jamshedpur: The residents of the 86 villages that lie in the vicinity of the Icha-Kharkai dam project area adjoining Seraikela-Kharsawan and West Singhbhum have launched a fresh agitation against the state govt. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Jharkhand Tribes Advisory Council (TAC) had on May 21 gave its nod to the project with amendments to the earlier design. "The TAC has passed a resolution and has proclaimed that the height of the dam will be reduced which would necessitate resettlement and rehabilitation of the people of only 18 villages which is totally wrong," saidIcha-Kharkai Bandh Virodhi Sangh (IKBS) president, Vir Singh Biruli. Citing that 1.5 lakh people will be affected by the construction of the dam, the outfit has staged protests in the 10 villages in the Rajnagar and Tantnagar blocks May 28-June 8. The 213-meter height Icha dam is part of the Subernarekha Multipurpose Project (SMP), and it is one of the four components of the SMP having a total budget of Rs 6,600 crore. The other three components are Chandil dam, Kharkhai barrage and Galudih barrage. The construction of the Chandil dam and Galudih barrage is complete, the Kharkhai barrage is nearing completion. "CM Hemant Soren has gone back on his promise which he made to the villagers at Sosohatu village in West Singhbhum in 2019," said IKBVS vice president Reyansh Samad. He said Soren had promised that he would never let the construction of the dam, however under pressure from the private corporate houses the CM got the TAC adopt the resolution favouring dam construction.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
State Information Commission recommends cyberfraud cases to be brought under RTI purview
Ahmedabad: The State Information Commission has recommended to the state home department that cyberfraud cases be brought under the purview of the Right to Information Act. It suggests supplying details about cyber offences and investigations to complainants by making amendments in the notification. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At present, the cybercrime cell refuses to share details about investigations and progress made in cyberfraud cases, citing that the cell functions under CID (Crime), which is exempted from the obligation of furnishing information under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. Information Commissioner Nikhil Bhatt has suggested the state govt withdraw the investigation of cyberfraud cases from the exemption granted to CID (Crime) by making amendments in its gazette notification of Oct 25, 2005, under the provisions of Section 25(3)(j) of the Act. The commission further stated that the govt has granted exemption to the local crime branch and crime branch in rural and urban areas from RTI obligations. It has recommended the withdrawal of this exemption in connection with these agencies as well, as far as cybercrime complaints are concerned. It has sought a periodic report of progress in this direction if the home department agrees to do it. "If the amended notification is issued by the state govt as recommended by the commission, a copy of it shall be sent to the commission," the order reads. The commission's recommendation came after one Rakesh Prajapati, a complainant in a cyberfraud case, sought details under RTI provisions regarding progress in the investigation of his case. However, he was denied the information by the authorities on the grounds that the cybercrime cell functions under CID (Crime), which is exempted from RTI obligations. The commission said that innocent citizens lose their hard-earned savings in cyberfraud, and they file complaints with the Cybercrime Cell. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now They are eager to know when they will get their money back and what action has been taken on their complaints. Upon denial of such information, they feel dejected. "This commission firmly believes that information related to cyber offences registered with the Cybercrime Cell, which functions under CID (Crime) at present, should be shared with the victims of cyberfraud. " The commission further said that CID (Crime) probes sensitive cases and hence is exempted from RTI purview. However, cyberfrauds are less serious in nature and it is not a "core activity" of CID (Crime). Moreover, the Cybercrime Cell was not in existence when CID (Crime) was exempted from RTI obligations. "The commission does not agree with the decision of not sharing information related to cyberfrauds under the guise of secrecy or by taking the shield of exemption granted under Section 24 of the RTI Act," it said.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC asks Centre to notify defence land zones by Dec
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court has directed the Union defence ministry to officially notify defence land zones in Hyderabad and Secunderabad by Dec 31, 2025, under the Works of Defence Act (WODA) of 1903. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Only after such notification, the court said, can authorities enforce construction restrictions around military establishments—even if the structures have local municipal permissions. Justice T Vinod Kumar, who delivered the verdict, emphasised that public interest must prevail over private interests, especially in light of recent security incidents such as the Pahalgam attack. The judgment came while disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by the Union of India, challenging the Telangana govt's 2016 amendment that removed the requirement for a no objection certificate (NOC) from defence authorities for construction near military zones. The court held that defence authorities do have powers to regulate construction near sensitive zones, but these powers must be exercised in line with WODA—by issuing formal notifications and adhering to due process. Until such notifications are issued, the court ordered that status quo be maintained on all construction near defence areas, including those with valid municipal permits. However, Justice Kumar adopted a stricter stance on unauthorised buildings—those constructed without any municipal approval—and directed GHMC and HMDA officials to initiate action under their respective laws. The court recognised that many builders had obtained permissions in good faith under the 2016 ministry of defence guidelines, which replaced the 2011 norms and reduced security zones from 100/500 metres to 10/100 metres, depending on the type of defence establishment. These guidelines classify establishments into part A (10-metre limit) and part B (100-metre limit). The judge affirmed that the 2016 norms, though issued as internal circulars, are the currently applicable standard, but emphasised that they do not have statutory force until notified under WODA. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Telangana govt defended its 2016 move, saying it allowed construction only after defence NOCs were obtained. It also argued that it is not obligated to enforce central defence rules unless officially notified. The court agreed, stating that the onus lies on the Centre to notify restricted areas before seeking compliance from state authorities or the public. Deputy solicitor general Gadi Praveen Kumar informed the court that a request for notification under section 3 of WODA had already been sent to the defence ministry, which is expected to act soon. The court also restrained builders from undertaking new construction in disputed areas until the ministry issues formal notifications, but protected post-2016 constructions with valid approvals from coercive action in the interim.
