The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) NO.23797 of 2013 Bijnanan Charan Swain ..... Petitioner Mr. K.K. Swain, Adv. State of Odisha & Others -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C. K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. S. Jena, Adv. (for O.P. No.1) Mr. R.N. Mishra, Adv. (for O.P. No.4) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 21.01.2025 Order No. 36 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.30.09.2013 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-27 and the order of approval extended in favour of private Opp. Party No.4 vide order dt.20.11.2021 under Annexure-28(A). 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner though was appointed as a Lecturer in Oriya vide order of appointment issued on 21.12.1989 under Annexure-1, but he was illegally terminated from his services w.e.f 28.08.2012 vide order dt.07.10.2012, so published in the daily newspaper “The Sambad”. Page 1 of 5. 4.1.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that challenging such action of the Managing Committee in terminating the services of the Petitioner which came to the knowledge of the Petitioner while coming across the paper publication dt.07.10.2012, Petitioner approached Opp. Party No.2 by filing an appeal under Annexure-14. 4.2. It is contended that even though factum of termination of the Petitioner was the issue in the appeal, but Opp. party No.2 never touched that issue and dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order dt.30.09.2013 under Annexure-27. 4.3. It is contended that the order of termination, terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f 28.08.2012 though was published in the daily newspaper on 07.10.2012, but no formal order of termination was ever issued to the Petitioner nor it was produced before the Director-Opp. Party No.2 by the Managing Committee on its appearance. It is however contended that since challenge was made to the illegal termination of the Petitioner w.e.f 28.08.2012 through the paper publication dt. 07.10.2012, the said issue should have been decided by Opp. Party No.2 in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. But Opp. Party No.2 without touching that aspect, rejected the appeal vide the impugned order dt.30.09.2013 under Annexure-27. 4.4. It is contended that taking advantage of such dismissal of the appeal, services of private opp. Party No.4 was approved as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Oriya vide order dt.20.11.2021 under Annexure-28(A). It is contended that such order of approval was also issued during pendency of the present Writ Petition before this Court. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by Opp. Party No.2 on 30.09.2013 under Annexure-27 and the consequential Page 2 of 5. order of approval approving the services of private Opp. Party No.4 vide order dt.20.11.2021 under Annexure-28(A) are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No.4 on the other hand contended that private Opp. Party No.4 was appointed as a Lecturer in Oriya vide order of appointment issued on 01.04.1994, where he joined on 15.04.1994. During continuance of Opp. Party No.4. When person appointed as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Odia died, private Opp. Party No.4 was adjusted as against the said vacant 1st post of Lecturer in Odia, which was also an approved post. 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner has been terminated from his services w.e.f 28.08,2012, Opp. Party No.4 is no way concerned with the appointment and approval of the services of the Petitioner. It is also contended that Petitioner does not have the required qualification to hold the post of Lecturer in Odia. 6. Mr. S. Jena learned counsel appearing on behalf of Governing Body on the other hand contended that person appointed as against the 1st Post of Lecturer in Oriya when died while continuing as against an approved post, Opp. Party No.4 having been appointed as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Odia, was adjusted as against the said 1st post of Lecturer in Odia. Because of such appointment and adjustment of Opp. Party No.4, his services after being recommended by the Governing body, was approved vide order dt.20.11.2021 under Annexure-28(A). It is also contended that petitioner does not have the required qualification to hold the post of Lecturer in Odia. Page 3 of 5. 7. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party Nos 3 & 4, Mr.K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that Petitioner does have the required qualification and the appointment of Opp. Party No.4 is bad in the eye of law. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Odia vide order of appointment issued on 21.12.1989 under Annexure-1. While so continuing and on coming across the paper publication dt.07.10.2012, Petitioner approached the Director- Opp. Party No.2 by filing Appeal No.23 of 2012 with the following prayer: Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the aforesaid appeal may be admitted and records be called for and upon hearing the parties, the termination order published in the local daily “The Sambad” on 07.10.2012 may be quashed/set aside and the appellant may be reinstated in his former post with all service benefits and his name may be recommended by the Governing Body against the 1st post of Lecturer in Oriya for the purpose of release of block grant in his favour in accordance with the Grant-in-aid order of 2008 and the appointment of Smt. Sailabala Nayak against the 1st post of Lecturer in Oriya may not be approved and no grant-in-aid may be released in her favour. And for which act of your kindness, the appellant shall as in duty bound, ever pray.” 8.1. This Court after going through the impugned order passed by Opp. Party No.2 on 30.09.2013, finds that the issue raised in the appeal i.e. termination of the Petitioner from his services w.e.f 28.08.2012 by way of a paper publication made on 07.10.2012, has not at all been dealt with and the appeal has been decided on a different context. Page 4 of 5. 8.2. In view of such material irregularity which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.30.09.2013 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-27. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim made by the Petitioner in the appeal. 8.3. Since the issue is of the year 2012 and in the meantime, Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 8.4. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to re-decide the issue within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. All the parties are directed to cooperate for disposal of the matter before the Director and for that purpose to appear before the Director on 15.02.2024. 8.5. It is however observed that order of approval made in favour of Opp. Party No.4 vide order dt.20.11.2021 under Annexure-28(A) shall be subject to final outcome of the appeal and the further order to be passed by competent higher forum.
Decision
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 17:21:38 Page 5 of 5.