The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 206 of 2024 An appeal arising out of the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2013. -------------- 1. State of Odisha 2. Collector -cum- Chief Executive of Sarba Sikhya Abhijan, Dhenkanal 3. District Inspector of Schools (Now Block Education Officer), Dhenkanal ..…. -versus- Appellants Hiranya Kumar Sahoo …… Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. For Respondent : Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 09.07.2024 Savitri Ratho, J This intra court appeal by the State of Odisha challenges an order dated 30.06.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2013 by a learned Single Judge , wherein the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 07.08.2013 disengaging the respondent W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 1 of 10 from the post of Sikshya Sahayak, holding that the order of disengagement was not sustainable in the eye of law. 2.
Decision
The respondent had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 07.08.2013 (Annexure-5). The case of the respondent was that pursuant to an advertisement dated 08.02.2011 published by the Collector -cum- Chief Executive of Sarba Sikhya Abhijan of Dhenkanal Revenue District, to fill up posts of Sikshya Sahayaks in the Dhenkanal Revenue District, he had applied for the post in Dhenkanal Education District. He was appointed as a Sikshya Sahayak of Oranda Primary School of Gondia Block of Dhenkanal Educational District. He was issued engagement order by the District Inspector on 10.05.2013. Thereafter, he was issued a show cause notice stating that he had filed a false affidavit as he had applied in respect of another Education District. He submitted a reply denying the allegation and stating that he had applied in respect of Dhenkanal Education District only under Dhenkanal Revenue District. But on 07.08.2013, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad issued a letter disengaging him from service stating that on verification it was found that he had submitted false affidavit as he had applied in more than one Education District Unit which W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 2 of 10 violated Resolution No. 587/SME dated 10.01.2011 of the Government. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by opposite party no.2 District Project Coordinator Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Dhenkanal, stating that pursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-2, though the petitioner made his application and was selected with issuance of the order of engagement on 10.05.2013 under Annexure-3, but subsequently, on verification it is found that the petitioner has made his application in respect of Jajpur Education District also. It is also stated that as required in the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, the petitioner had to file an affidavit that he has not made any application in respect of any other Education District. Since the petitioner filed a false affidavit indicating therein that he has not made any application in respect of any other Education District, after due consideration of his reply to the show cause, he was dis-engaged vide the impugned order under Annexure-5. It is contended that no illegality has been committed by the Opposite Party No.2 in dis-engaging the petitioner vide order at Annexure-5. It has been stated in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit as follows:- W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 3 of 10 “That as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, Orissa passed in Misc. Case No. 18066/2013 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 19654 of 2013, the petitioner has re-engaged as Sikshya Sahayak vide order No.689, dt. 26.11.2013 of Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhenkanal subject to the outcome of the interim order of W.P.(C) No. 19654/2013.” 4. The learned Single Judge set aside the order disengaging the petitioner and allowed the writ petition holding as follows: “7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the stipulation contained under Annexure-2, it is the view of this Court that the petitioner has not suppressed anything in his affidavit. As required in the advertisement, the petitioner submitted the affidavit by indicating therein that he has only made his application in respect of Dhenkanal Education District coming under Dhenkanal Revenue District. Since the advertisement under Annnexure-2 is not very specific asking the candidates to file an affidavit that he has not made any application in respect of any Education District coming under any other Revenue District, the stand taken by the Opposite Parties while disengaging the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. Not only that by virtue of the interim order passed on 30.08.2013, the petitioner is W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 4 of 10 continuing in his work as on date. Therefore, in any view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order of dis-engagement passed under Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the same and while quashing the same, allow the petitioner to continue in his work as before. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed accordingly.” 5. We have heard Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has submitted that copy of the said Resolution No.587/SME dated 10.01.2011 of School and Mass Education Department was annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. But without considering the relevant Clause in the resolution, the learned Single Judge quashed the disengagement order dated 07.08.2013 and directed to allow the respondent to continue in his work as before. He has submitted that this finding of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the Resolution dated 10.01.2011 of the government and not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the respondent had filed the required W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 5 of 10 affidavit on 23.12.2011, wherein he had stated that he has not made any application for engagement of Sikshya Sahayak in any education district, other than the education district of Dhenkanal. But after verification, it was found that the respondent was also a candidate for education district of Jajpur, which is contrary to his affidavit. The letter dated 27.05.2023 of District Project Coordinator, SSA, Jajpur, indicated that he was a candidate for Jajpur district. As he had filed false affidavit before the authority that he has not applied in other district, other than Dhenkanal district, it amounted to suppression of material facts. So he was issued with show cause notice and thereafter the disengagement order was issued. But the learned Single Judge without considering the counter affidavit and documents annexed therein, has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to continue in his work as before, which is illegal and contrary to the law. The finding of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the advertisement and also the Resolution dated 10.01.2011. The order of the learned Single Judge is therefore not sustainable and is liable for interference. 7. Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the advertisement under Annexure-2, there is a stipulation that one has to file an affidavit indicating W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 6 of 10 therein that he has not made any application in respect of any other Education District. As the advertisement under Annexure-2 was in respect of Dhenkanal Revenue District and the petitioner had submitted application in respect of Dhenkanal Education District only, it cannot be said that he has filed a false affidavit because he had submitted application in Jajpur Revenue District. He further submits that there is no specific stipulation in the advertisement at Annexure-2 to file an affidavit that he has not made any application in respect of any Education District coming under the other Revenue Districts. Since in terms of Annexure-2 and in respect of Dhenkanal Revenue District, the petitioner only made his application in respect of Dhenkanal Education District, it cannot be held that the Petitioner has submitted a false affidavit. So his disengagement was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. 8. The learned Single Judge has discussed the facts and law in extenso and come to the conclusion that as the clause in the advertisement regarding the affidavit was not very specific, the petitioner had not suppressed anything. 9. To consider the rival contentions and a careful perusal of the relevant resolution and advertisement are necessary. W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 7 of 10 10. On 10.01.2011 the Government of Odisha in Department of School and Mass Education published Resolution No.587/SME containing the guidelines for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks, wherein it was stipulated that the selection will be made by concerned Zilla Parishad and it was stipulated at Clause-5.1 that “a candidate may make an application for any Education District unit of the State irrespective of his/her home Education District subject to condition that he/she apply in respect of one Education District unit only” and “the candidate shall have to furnish an affidavit with his/her application to the effect that he/she has not made application for engagement of Sikshya Sahayak in any Education District unit other than the Education District unit applied for.” Para-5 and para 5.1 of the Resolution are reproduced below:- “5. Mode of Application 5.1 Applications will be invited from eligible candidates (registered with employment exchanges/ State employment exchanges as the case may be) through advertisement in local newspapers by the respective Collector -cum- CEO, Zilla Parishad. A candidate may make an application for any Education District unit of the State irrespective of his/her home education District subject to condition W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 8 of 10 that he/she shall apply in respect of one Education District unit only. Application will be submitted in following ways before the respective CEO, Zilla Parishad i.e. (a) Registered post (b) By person The candidate shall have to furnish an affidavit with his/her application to the effect that he/she has not made application for engagement of Sikhya Sahayak in any Education District unit other than the Education District unit applied for. If, on verification it is found that the candidate has applied in more than one Education District unit for engagement as Sikhya Sahayak, his/her application shall be rejected without assigning any reason thereof.” 11. The advertisement was published on 08.02.2011 in respect of Dhenkanal Education District, inviting applications for engagement as Sikhya Sahayaks mentioning that an applicant should have applied in only one Education District and an affidavit to that effect was to be filed. 12. The clause in the advertisement requiring filing of affidavit regarding application in an Education District is not very clear and there is no mention in the advertisement that Resolution dated 10.01.2011 should be read along with the advertisement. W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 9 of 10 13. So we are of the view that the affidavit submitted by the respondent was in consonance with the requirement in the advertisement. It cannot be said that the affidavit given by the respondent was false or he had suppressed any material fact. 14. That apart the respondent is working since more than ten years in her post. 15. In view of the above discussion and as we find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, we find no merit in this writ appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 9th July, 2024. S.K. Behera, Senior Stenographer. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2024 10:53:34 W.A. No. 206 of 2024 Page 10 of 10