The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.491 of 2024 Prativa Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr.D.N. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Adv. for O.P.5 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.01.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner is permitted to describe the Petitioner properly in Court today. 3. Counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.5 in Court be kept in record.
Legal Reasoning
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 5. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner in her capacity as Principal In-Charge, Harachandi Mahila Higher Secondary School, Rabana, Nuagaon, Bhimagiri in the district of Puri, challenging the order dtd.26.12.2023 // 2 // so passed by the Director, Higher Secondary Education- Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-7. 5.1. Vide the said order, Opposite Party No.2 while disposing the appeal so filed by Opposite Party No.5 allowed the appellant to rejoin in her post i.e. Lecturer in Odia and with a further direction on the School Authorities to take immediate steps for reconstitution of the Governing Body as per the provisions contained under The Orissa Education (Establishment Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1991. 5.2. It is the case of the Petitioner that since private Opposite Party No. 5 acted against the interest of the Institution by not handing over the records in spite of several request and clandestinely transferred the property belonging to the Institution, taking into account such conduct of Opposite Party No.5 in her place one Nurgish Begum was appointed as Principal-in-Charge vide order dtd.13.06.2019 of the Tahasildar, Brahmagiri-cum- Special Officer-Opposite Party No.3. After such order of appointment issued on 13.06.2019, when Opposite Party No.5 in spite of letters issued to her by the Principal-In- Charge as well as by the Special Officer, she did not hand over the records nor joined in her work, she was terminated from her services vide office order dtd.04.05.2020. But Opposite Party No.2 on the face of the stand taken by the College in the reply submitted under Annexure-2 and additional reply submitted under Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Annexure-4, allowed the claim of Opposite Party No.5 vide the impugned order dtd.26.12.2023 under Annexure-7.
Legal Reasoning
5.3. It is contended that on the face of the allegations so available in the record against Opposite Party No.5, Opposite Party No.2 should not have allowed the appeal with passing of the impugned order in question. It is accordingly contented the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.5 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed in Court today. It is contended that the Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order in question as the Petitioner at no point of time was allowed to discharge the duty of Principal-In-Charge of the College in question. 6.1. It is also contented that after passing of the impugned order, Petitioner though sought for permission of the Sub-Collector, Puri, who is now acting as President of the Governing Body of the School in question to challenge the order, but no such permission has been accorded to the Petitioner as on date. 6.2. It is contended that without having the permission from the President of the Government Body, the present writ petition since has been filed, it is not at all entertainable. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 6.3. It is also contended that the order of termination since has been passed by the Principal-In-Charge, who was so appointed in place of Opposite Party No.5, vide order dtd.13.06.2019 without having any authority or permission of the Special Officer-Opposite Party No.3, the same has been rightly interfered with by Opposite Party No.2, while passing the order on 26.12.2023 under Annexure-7 and it requires no interference. 7. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand basing on the order passed by the Director under Annexure-7 contented that while allowing the appeal so filed by Opposite Party No.5, Opposite Party No.2 has directed the School authorities to take immediate steps for reconstitution of the Governing Body since admittedly the College is not having with the Governing Body from the year, 2012. 7.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the order passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-7, appropriate order be passed by this Court taking into account the interest of the Institution in question. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that present Opposite Party No.5 was appointed as a Lecturer in Odia, where she joined on 04.01.1993. Opposite Party No.5 was terminated from her services by the Principal In-Charge of the College vide order dtd.04.05.2020 on the ground that Opposite Party No.5 remained absent from her duty with an intention not Page 4 of 6 // 5 // to serve any more and has taken away the school records. Since Opposite Party No.5 was an employee of the School since 1993, the manner in which she has been terminated vide order dtd.04.05.2020, as per the considered view of this Court has been rightly interfered with by Opposite Party No.2. However, taking into account the allegation made against Opposite Party No.5, this Court is of the view that Opposite Party No.5 should be allowed to join in the College as a Lecturer in Odia and present Petitioner is directed to accept the joining of Opposite Party No.5, if the same is submitted afresh on or before 19.01.2024. 8.1. Considering the order passed by the Director to take step of reconstitution of the Governing Body, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take immediate step for compliance of the order with regard to reconstitution of the Governing Body. But taking into account the nature of dispute involved, this Court is of the view that neither the present petitioner nor Opposite Party No.5 be allowed to continue as Principal In-Charge of the College. Till a Governing Body is reconstituted with due approval of the same, Opposite Party No.2 is directed to nominate any senior Lecturer from any adjoining / nearby College of the area to act as Principal in-Charge of the College as an interim measure with passing of an appropriate order in that regard within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of joining of Opposite Party No.5. It will be open for the Governing Body to be reconstituted to take appropriate action against Opposite Party No.5 for her alleged Page 5 of 6 // 6 // misconduct by giving due opportunity of hearing. Opposite Party No.5 is also directed to hand over the records so available with her on the date of her joining to the Petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification of order dtd.26.12.2023. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jan-2024 11:13:58 Page 6 of 6