The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 1262 of 2025 Dolamani Bachha ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Roy, Adv. State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 15.01.2025 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule “NISI” to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to; (i) Why the impugned order of rejection dated 04.07.2015 passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside; and (ii) Why the impugned communications dated 07.02.2023 under Annexure-11 dated and 08.08.2024 under Annexure-13 passed by the Opp. Party NO.2 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside; and communication (iii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to re- instate the Petitioner in the vacant post of Physical Education Teacher in the High School in view of the Governing Body resolution dated 16.03.2021 under Anbnexur8 and finding/observation given by Opposite Party No.3 in the communication dated 19.08.2022 Page 1 of 5. communication under Annexure-10 dated and 09.05.2024 under Annexure-12 within a stipulated time; And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed; 4. It is contended that Petitioner though was appointed vide order dt.26.12.2010 but he was illegally terminated from his services by the then Managing Committee without following due procedure of law. 4.1. It is contended that challenging such order of termination, Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C ) No.24882 of 2014. This Court vide order dt.22.03.2015 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide order dt.04.07.2015 of Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-7. It is contended that after passing of the order under Annexure-7, the new Managing Committee in its proceeding dt.16.03.2021 resolved to re-engage the Petitioner in his services. 4.2. It is contended that such resolution of the Managing Committee taken in its proceeding dt.16.03.2021 under Annexure-8 when was forwarded to the concerned D.E.O-Opp. Party No.3, Opp. Party No.3 in turn recommended the same to Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dt.19.08.2022 under Annexure-10. The recommendation reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx “with reference to the subject cited above I am to inform you that, Sri Dolamani Bachha, joined as PET on dtd.03.01.2011 and was terminated on dtd.02.09.2013 by the then Managing Committee, Binod Bihari High School, Khairpadar resolution NO.40 vide dtd.10.11.2013 (copy enclosed) on personal grudge of the then Secretary Smt. Santi Sunani. As the PET post of the school is vacant since 02.09.2013 and physical Page 2 of 5. education class of the students has been suffered, now the present Managing Committee has submitted resolution for re-instatement of Sri Dolamani Bachha vide resolution No.74 dtd.16.03.2021 (copy enclosed). Sri Pankanj Bachha, father of Sri Dolamani Bachha is the donor of the School land where the school is situated now. In the above context you are requested to issue necessary clarification/instruction as regards re- statement of Sri Dolamani Bachha, Ex-PET of Binod Bihari High School, Khairpadar. xxx xxx xxx 4.3. It is contended that after receipt of the recommendation so made under Annexure-10, Opp.party No.2 relying on the earlier order passed by the D.E.O on 04.07.2015 under Annexure-7 not only refused to entertain the decision of the new Managing Committee, but also indicated that on the face of the order passed on 04.07.2015, no recommendation could have been made by Opp. Party No.3. 4.4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner was earlier disengaged by the previous Managing Committee without following due procedure of law , the subsequent Managing Committee on coming across the same resolved in its proceeding dt.16.03.2021 to re-engage the Petitioner. 4.5. It is contended that in view of such decision taken by the New Managing Committee under Annexure-8, the order passed on 04.07.2015 automatically lapses. But by relying on the said order, request made by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexures-10 & 12 have been negatived by Opp. Party No.2 vide the impugned communication dt.08.08.2024 under Annexure-13. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which the impugned communication Page 3 of 5. under Annexure-13 has been issued is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel though on the other hand supported the impugned rejection, but contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision, considering the resolution passed by the new Managing Committee on 16.03.2021 under Annexure-8. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed vide order dt.26.12.2010 under Annexure-1. While so continuing, Petitioner when was terminated from his services by the previous Managing Committee, challenging the same, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.24822 of 2014. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2015, though the order of termination was not interfered with by Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.04.07.2015 under Annexure-7, but the new Managing Committee in its proceeding dt.16.03.2021 under Annexure-8 resolved to re- engage the Petitioner. It is the view of this Court such a fresh decision taken by the Managing Committee is required to be considered without relying on the earlier action of the Managing Committee in terminating the services of the Petitioner which has been affirmed vide order dt.04.07.2015 under Annexure-7. 6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned rejection made by Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dt.08.08.2024 under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.2 to consider the recommendation made by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexures-10 & Page 4 of 5. 12 without relying on the earlier order passed by the D.E.O-Opp. Party NO.3 on 04.07.2015 under Annexure-7. 6.2. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result thereof to the Petitioner as well as Opp. Party No.3. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 17-Jan-2025 17:31:04 Page 5 of 5.