Rejection of approval cannot satisfy Section 10-A’s prior-approval requirement for termination.

The petitioner was appointed by the Governing Body of Kesinga Mahavidyalaya to the first post of Lecturer in Zoology on 26 October 2016, after the previous incumbent, Dr. Mamata Mishra, had left the post. He continued in service until his termination on 1 March 2024, receiving salary from the management but no Government-in-Aid (“GIA”), although the post had earlier received GIA during the predecessor’s tenure.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 16826 of 2022 seeking approval of his service and release of GIA. Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the Director of Higher Education rejected his request by order dated 9 November 2022. Following his termination, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 4 of 2024 before the State Education Tribunal under Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act. By order dated 26 September 2025, the Tribunal treated the Director’s rejection order as satisfying the approval requirement under Section 10-A and adjudicated the termination dispute accordingly.

Before the High Court, the State questioned the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not receiving GIA. The State also contended that the petitioner’s appointment had not been made through the prescribed selection process and that he had continued only in a management post.

The opposite parties who had been served did not enter appearance.

The Court applied Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act, which governs the requirement of approval in matters concerning appointments and termination in aided educational institutions.

It also considered the Odisha Education (Selection Board for the State) Rules, 1992, under which appointments to posts in aided educational institutions are required to follow the prescribed selection-board procedure.

The Court further applied the principle that a rejection of approval and release of GIA cannot, without proper legal reasoning, be treated as an approval or as compliance with a statutory requirement of prior approval for termination.

The High Court rejected the State’s maintainability objection at the preliminary stage because the post occupied by the petitioner had previously received GIA during the predecessor’s tenure and was therefore an aided and GIA-eligible post, notwithstanding that the petitioner himself had not received GIA.

However, the Court found that the Tribunal had adopted an legally unsustainable approach by treating the Director’s order dated 9 November 2022—which expressly rejected approval of the petitioner’s service and release of GIA—as satisfying the statutory approval requirement under Section 10-A.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s appointment had been made by the Governing Body without following the selection-board procedure under the 1992 Rules, and that he had been paid by the management rather than through GIA.

Since the Tribunal had not properly examined these issues while deciding the legality of the petitioner’s termination, the High Court considered it appropriate to set aside the Tribunal’s order and remit the matter for fresh adjudication rather than determine the merits finally.

However, it held that the Tribunal erred in treating the Director’s rejection of approval dated 9 November 2022 as compliance with the approval requirement under Section 10-A.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 26 September 2025 and remanded Appeal No. 4 of 2024 to the State Education Tribunal for fresh consideration, after granting due opportunity of hearing to all parties, preferably within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the High Court’s order.