A.K.Rath, J. - This petition challenges the order dated 5.10.2016, passed by the Director, Higher Education Department, Odisha, vide Annexure-9, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Asst. Librarian under Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 has been rejected.

2. Hemanta Kumar Rout, husband of the petitioner, was working as an Asst. Librarian (1st post) in Nalini Kanta Mohavidyalaya, Rajnagar, Keonjhar. Pursuant to the approval of the Government in the Higher Education Department vide order No.55125, dated 12.12.2013, he was receiving block grant. He expired on 20.06.2012. He was the sole bread earner of his family. After his demise, the family members are in a distressed condition. The petitioner, who is the widow of Hemanta Kumar Rout, filed an application before the Principal, Nalini Kanta Mohavidyalaya, Rajnagar, Kendrapara on 27.6.2012 to appoint her under the rehabilitation assistance scheme. Pursuant to the resolution of the Governing Body, the Principal issued letter of appointment to the petitioner appointing her in the post of Asst. Librarian (1st post) on 05.07.2012. The petitioner joined in the post on 11.7.2012. The Governing Body of the College sent the proposal to the Government on 02.09.2016 for approval of the appointment of the petitioner under rehabilitation assistance scheme. The same was rejected on 05.10.2016, vide Annexure-9, on the ground that there is no provision for appointment under the rehabilitation assistant scheme to the legal heirs of the employees of the College receiving Block Grant.

3. Heard Mr. Purusottam Chuli, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. Mr. Chuli, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the husband of the petitioner was functioning as Asst. Librarian (1st post). He died while in service. After his death, the family received a setback. The application of the petitioner was rejected on untenable and unsupportable grounds. To buttress the submission, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul vs. State of Odisha and others, (W.P.(C) No.5022 of 2013 disposed of on 11.5.2016).

5. In Ritanjali Giri @ Paul , the question arose as to whether the benefit of the Scheme applies to the family members of an aided educational institution, which is receiving block grant This Court held

"7. Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 defines the Aided Educational Institutions, which is quoted hereunder:

"3(b) Aided Educational Institutions means private educational institution which is eligible to, and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, and includes an educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-in-aid."

8. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is abundantly clear that private educational institution which is eligible to, and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, and includes an educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grantin-aid is an aided educational institution. The Act does not make any distinction between the full Grant School or Block Grant School. Moreover, the private educational institution which has been notified by the State Government to receive grant-in-aid is also an aided educational institution."

6. The judgment in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul applies with full force to the facts of this case. The application of the petitioner was rejected on jejune grounds. In view of the same, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, opposite party no.2, for re-consideration in accordance with law.

7. The petition is allowed.