The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.33 of 2018 ..... Hiralal Naik & Anr. Petitioners Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate Tirthabasi Padhan & Ors. -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. B. Satapathy, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 09.04.2025 Order No.08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners, Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. B. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2. On the face of the appearance made by Opp. Party No. 7, no one is there when the matter was called. 3. This Review Petition has been filed seeking review of order dtd.01.11.2017 so passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008. Vide the said order this Court remitted the matter to the Managing Committee of the School in question with a direction to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and by due service of a show-cause notice on the Review Petitioners/Opp. Party Nos. 6 & 7 to the said writ petition. Page 1 of 8. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners contended that Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Classical Teacher by the Managing Committee of the School vide order dtd.01.07.1991 and Petitioner No. 2 as a Hindi Teacher vide order dtd.29.10.1992. While so continuing, when Petitioners were not allowed to discharge their duty w.e.f.02.01.1994 and Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 were appointed in their place vide order dtd.20.04.1994 & 03.02.1997 respectively, challenging such action of the Managing Committee, the present Petitioners approached this Court by filing OJC No. 8193 & 8194 of 1997.
Decision
4.1. This Court vide order dtd.25.02.2000 disposed of both the writ petitions by permitting the Petitioners to move the appellate authority who happens to be the Director, Secondary Education in terms of the Resolution dtd.27.03.1983. Pursuant to the said order, present Review Petitioners moved the appellate authority by filing the appeal, which were registered as Appeal Case Nos. 2 & 3 of 2002 respectively. 4.2. It is contended that the appellate authority-Director, Secondary Education vide order dtd.12.12.2002 while setting aside the order of termination so issued by the Managing Committee of the School terminating the services of the Review Petitioners, directed the Managing Committee to reinstate the Review Petitioners as against their respective posts. Page 2 of 8. 4.3. It is contended that the Managing Committee challenging such order passed by the appellate authority on 12.12.2002 in Appeal Case Nos. 2 & 3 of 2002 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2003. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd.15.04.2008. It is also contended that during pendency of W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2003, the present Review Petitioners also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16027 of 2005, for implementation of order passed by the Director on 12.12.2002. The said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dtd.15.04.2008 inter alia directing the Managing Committee of the School to take proper step for reinstatement of the Petitioners. 4.4. It is contended that while the matter stood thus, the present Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the self-same order passed by the Director on 12.12.2002, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008. Even though the present Review Petitioners duly appeared after being noticed, but they could not participate at the time of hearing of the matter and accordingly the order in question was passed on 01.11.2017 by this Court, wherein the Managing Committee was directed to issue a fresh show-cause on the present Review Petitioners and to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. 4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners contended that since the order of termination passed against Page 3 of 8. the Review Petitioners by the Managing Committee was set aside by the Director, Secondary Education vide order dtd.12.12.2002 in Appeal Case Nos. 2 & 3 of 2002 and the said order was upheld by this Court with dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2003 so filed by the Managing Committee vide order dtd.15.04.2008, the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008 should not have been entertained by this Court with passing of the order dtd.01.11.2017. 4.6. It is contended that once the order passed by the Director was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dt.15.04.2008, no further order could have been passed, wherein the self-same order passed by the Director was under challenge. It is also contended that since the Managing Committee was never impleaded as a Party to the proceeding in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008, the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party was not entertainable. Not only that in absence of being a Party to the writ petition, no direction could have been issued to the Managing Committee to deal with the issue by issuing a fresh show-cause. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order needs a review. 5. Mr. B. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2/Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008 contended that after being terminated from their services, Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 were appointed against the vacant post Page 4 of 8. of the Review Petitioners, vide order dtd.20.04.1994 & 03.02.1997. 5.1. It is also contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 01.11.2017, the Managing Committee issued fresh show-cause notice on the Petitioners on 22.12.2017 under Annexure-A/7 series to the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No. 7 and by following due procedure of law, termination of the Review Petitioners, were held to be legal and justified. Subsequently, vide order dtd.25.04.2019 of DEO, Bolangir under Annexure-A/1, services of Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 vide order dtd.08.11.2019 was approved under Annexure-A/2. 5.2. It is contended that since in terms of order dtd.01.11.2017 Petitioners were issued with fresh show-cause and after due consideration of the reply made by the Petitioners, their terminations were held legal and justified by the Managing Committee and thereafter services of Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 have been approved vide order dtd.08.11.2019 under Annexure-A/2, prayer made in the Review Petition is not entertainable. 5.3. It is also contended that on the face of the notice issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008, Review Petitioners never entered their appearance and in absence of them since the matter was allowed with passing of the order on 01.11.2017, the Review Petition is not entertainable. Page 5 of 8. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since the dispute is interse in between the Review Petitioners and Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2, this Court may pass appropriate order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that both the Petitioners were appointed by the Managing Committee of the School vide order dtd.01.07.1991 and 29.10.1992. While so continuing, when the Review Petitioners were not allowed to discharge their duty, challenging such action of the Managing Committee and pursuant to the order passed by this Court in OJC No. 8193 of 1997 & 8194 of 1997, Review Petitioners moved the Director, Secondary Education by filing Appeal Case Nos. 2 & 3 of 2002. 6.1. As found, both the appeals were allowed by the Director, Secondary Education vide order dtd.12.12.2002. The Managing Committee though challenged order dtd.12.12.2002 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2003, the said writ petition was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd.15.04.2008. This Court vide another order passed on 15.04.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 16027 of 2005 also directed the Managing Committee to take appropriate action for compliance of the order dtd.12.12.2002 so passed by the Director. Page 6 of 8. 6.2. However, it is found that present Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the self-same order dtd.12.12.2002, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008. As found in the said writ petition the Managing Committee was never impleaded as a Party to the writ petition. This Court vide order dtd.01.11.2017 while disposing the writ petition, directed the Managing Committee to take fresh decision on the claim of the Review Petitioners by issuing aforesaid show- cause notice. 6.3. In terms of the said order though show-cause notices were issued to the Review Petitioners on 22.12.2017 under Annexure-A/7 series and the Managing Committee held the termination of the Review Petitioners as legal and justified vide letter dtd.11.01.2018 under Annexure-D/7 series, but it is the view of this Court that on the face of the order passed by the Director on 12.12.2002 so confirmed by this Court in its order dtd.15.04.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 934 of 2003 by a Division Bench, the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008 should not have been entertained, with passing of the order dtd.01.11.2017, even though the present Review Petitioners on the face of notice being issued did not enter their appearance. 6.4. It is the view of this Court that once an order passed by the Director has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, no further order should have been passed, wherein the Page 7 of 8. self-same order passed by the Director was under challenge. Not only in absence of being a Party to the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2008, no direction could have been issued to the Managing Committee to issue a fresh show- cause and to decide the issue. 6.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to review order dtd.01.11.2017. While reviewing the said order, this Court is inclined to recall the same and restore the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 7941 of 2018 to its file. 7. The Review Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2025 10:22:49 Page 8 of 8.