The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC NO.7231 of 2010 (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India). Praphulla Kumar Naik … Petitioner -versus- Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar and Others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. M.K. Khuntia, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING :28.11.2023 DATE OF JUDGMENT :28.11.2023 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The challenge of the petitioner in this writ is to the order of his suspension dated 22.06.2004 issued by OPNo.3 and the order passed on 18.03.2010 by Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal (SET) in Appeal No.21/2006 declining to interfere with the order of suspension. 2. Facts in precise are that the petitioner being a Trained Arts Graduate was selected by OPNo.3 as WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 1 of 8 Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). The petitioner, accordingly, joined as Senior most TGT on 01.07.1993
Legal Reasoning
interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, it is ordered. WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 7 of 8 7. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. The record as produced by the learned AGA be returned back to him on proper acknowledgment after retaining a photocopy of the same. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 28th of November, 2023/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 30-Nov-2023 10:28:24 WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
in Srikrishna High School, Rajpur (hereinafter referred to as “the School”) and discharged the duties of HM(I/C) in terms of Govt. direction dated 22.06.1989, but the School became an Aided Educational Institution w.e.f. 01.01.2004 vide SRO No.60/2004 dated 05.02.2004. The petitioner while continuing as such, all on a sudden was served with a letter of Management Committee (MC) in MC No.04/3 dated 26.05.2004 to handover the charge of the post of HM to another junior teacher Prem Chand Oram by 16.06.2004 without assigning any reason and, being aggrieved, the petitioner approached SET in Appeal No.04/05, wherein he came to know that he has been placed under suspension w.e.f. 22.06.2004 without any approval of Inspector of Schools in terms of Rule-21(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (in short “the Rules”). It is also stated by the petitioner in WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 2 of 8 the writ that in fact, no reason was assigned in the order of suspension to indicate as to why he was put under suspension nor any explanation was called for from him in this regard. The petitioner, thereafter, unsuccessfully challenged his order of suspension before SET in Appeal No.21 of 2006 which according to him was disposed of in ignorance of provision of Rule- 21(b) of the Rules and, thereby, such order being unsustainable in the eye of law is also liable to be set aside. 3. In response to the notice of writ, OPNo.2 has filed counter supported with an affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ against Ops by interalia averring that the appointment of the petitioner was approved as Assistant Teacher for the purpose of receiving Grant-In-Aid (GIA) vide Memo No.873 dated 05.02.2005 (Annexure-E/2) of the office of OPNo.2. In his counter affidavit, while not disputing about the suspension of the petitioner and status of the School as a Govt. Aided School w.e.f. 01.01.2004, OPNo.2 has averred that an explanation WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 3 of 8 was called for from the petitioner on certain alleged points by the MC on 05.04.2004 and, thereafter, being dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, OPNo.3 had issued his suspension order under Annexure-9, but the petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged his suspension order before SET, the present writ merits no consideration. In response to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit by reiterating the averments of the writ. 4. Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned AGA in the matter and perused the record. Mr. Khuntia by additionally producing the original records in connection with the matter of the petitioner, submits that the suspension order as issued by OPNo.3 against the petitioner under Annexure-9 having attained finality in the departmental proceeding and the petitioner having already reinstated to the service with minor penalties, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the further fact WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 4 of 8 that the petitioner after accepting the penalty has already joined service w.e.f. 10.12.2015. 5. On a plain glance of the averments taken in the writ, it appears to the Court that the petitioner has challenged his suspension order under Annexure- 9 purely on the ground of want of approval by Inspector of Schools as required under the proviso to Rule-21(2)(b) of the Rules, but the record produced by the learned AGA discloses that the District Education Officer (DEO) vide his Office Order No.6788 dated 01.08.2016 has approved the order of suspension of the petitioner by treating the period as such. Besides, the OPNo.3 vide Office Order No.66 dated 07.12.2015 has reinstated the petitioner in service w.e.f. 08.12.2015 by communicating the decision of the Managing Committee and the petitioner was accordingly warned by the committee not to repeat such type of mistake or irregularities in future. It is, therefore, very clear that the departmental proceeding has already been finalized and pursuant to such decision in the departmental WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 5 of 8 proceeding, the petitioner has also joined in the post w.e.f. 10.12.2015. Even on merits, it appears from Annexure-E/2 to the counter affidavit of OPNo.2 which was not denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit that the Inspector of Schools, Sundargarh Circle vide his Office Order No.873 dated 05.02.2005 has approved the post of the petitioner to become eligible to get Block Grant @ Rs.40% per month w.e.f. 01.01.2004, but since this order was admittedly issued on 05.02.2005, the petitioner’s suspension under Annexure-9 being issued on 22.06.2004 cannot be held to be illegal for want of approval in terms of Rule-21(2)(b) of the Rules inasmuch as at that time of issuance of the suspension order against the petitioner, he was considered to be un-aided private employee of the School and, therefore, the suspension order issued by the Managing Committee cannot be questioned in terms of Rule-21(b) of the Rules notwithstanding to the fact that the post of the petitioner was approved for Block Grant w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Additionally, the WPC No.7231 of 2010 Page 6 of 8 order of suspension has already been regularized by approval of the authority in terms of the order passed by the DEO on 01.08.2016. Further, Letter No.4025 dated 08.02.2021 of Deputy Director (NGS) to DEO, Sundargarh makes it very clear that the DEO was authorized to approve notionally the appointment of petitioner from 01.01.2004 up to 09.12.2015 with actual financial benefits w.e.f. 10.12.2015 and, accordingly, the service of the petitioner was already regularized. 6. On a careful conspectus of the averments taken in the writ petition and on going through the documents as annexed thereto as well as the documents produced by the learned AGA today, there remains no dispute about finalization of the departmental proceeding of the petitioner and approval of his suspension by the authority concerned in terms of Rule-21(b) of the Rules necessitating no