The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.162 of 2011 Bhanu Charan Patra …. Appellant Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Respondents Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA (appearing for State-Respondents) Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate (appearing for Respondent No. 5) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement ORDER 12.04.2023 (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment dtd.14.03.2011 passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in G.I.A. Case No. 184 of 2008. 3. It is the case of the Appellant that Gram Panchayat High School, Sailo in the district of Puri was established in the year 1987 and it became eligible to receive grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.01.2004 vide Notification dtd.20.02.2004 under Grant-in-aid order, 2004. // 2 // 3.1. The present Appellant was selected and appointed as against the 2nd post of Peon vide order of appointment issued on 08.01.1993. The Appellant pursuant to the said order joined as against the 2nd post of Peon and discharged his duty as Night Watchman -cum- Sweeper w.e.f.10.01.1993. It is contended that while the Appellant was expecting approval of his services as against the 2nd post of Peon with consequential release of grant-in- aid, the then Headmaster of the School in connivance with the Respondent No. 5 manipulated the records in favour of the Respondent No. 5 by showing his appointment as against the 2nd post of Peon vide order of appointment issued on 19.12.1992 in terms of Managing Committee resolution No. 35 dtd.27.12.1992. 3.2. It is contended that even though as reflected in the order of appointment so issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 on 19.12.1992, it is indicated that he was appointed in terms of Managing Committee Resolution No. 35 dtd.27.12.1992, but in the proceeding dtd.27.12.1992 the name of the Respondent No. 5 was indicated as Pratap Kumar Rout even though the order of appointment has been issued in the name of one Pratap Chandra Rout on 19.12.1992. It is also contended that by the time the Respondent No. 5 was so appointed by the Managing Committee 19.12.1992 in terms of the Governing Body resolution Page 2 of 10 // 3 // dtd.27.12.1992, the Managing Committee in question was not in existence as the order of approval issued in favour of the Managing Committee was withdrawn by the Inspector of Schools-Respondent No. 3. 3.3. It is contended that vide order dtd.15.12.1992 though the Managing Committee of the School was approved by the Respondent No. 3, but the approval of the Managing Committee was subsequently withdrawn by the Inspector of Schools vide order dtd.28.12.1992. The Managing Committee so approved vide order dtd.28.12.1992 held its 1st meeting on 07.01.1993 and in terms of the Resolution of the Managing Committee the Appellant was appointed as against the 2nd post of Peon on 08.01.1993. The Appellant in terms of the said order joined as against the 2nd post of Peon on 10.01.1993. It is contended that the order of approval
Legal Reasoning
passed by the Respondent No. 3 on 28.12.1992 was challenged by the Managing Committee so approved vide order dtd.15.12.1992 before this Court in OJC No. 80 of 1993. By the time this Court passed an interim order on 11.01.1993 by holding that the Governing Body so approved on 28.12.1992 shall not function without leave of this Court, the present Appellant before passing of the interim order on 11.01.1993 was already appointed on 08.01.1993 with date of joining as 10.01.1993. Page 3 of 10 // 4 // 3.4. It is also contended that taking advantage of the interim order so passed on 11.01.1993 the Managing Committee so approved on 15.12.1992 manipulated the records by appointing the Respondent No. 5 as against the 2nd post of Peon vide order dtd.19.12.1992 in terms of the Managing Committee resolution dtd.27.12.1992. It is also contended that when a plea was taken that as to how order of appointment will be issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 on 19.12.1992 basing on a resolution passed on 27.12.1992, a corrigendum was issued by the Secretary of the College on 28.12.1992 inter alia indicating therein that pursuant to the resolution dtd.13.03.1992, Respondent No. 5 was so appointed vide order dtd.19.12.1992. 3.5. Learned counsel for the Appellant further contended that the interim order passed by this Court on 11.01.1993 in OJC No. 80 of 1993 was subsequently vacated by this Court vide order dtd.18.12.1995. During pendency of the matter in OJC No. 80 of 1993 basing on the order passed by this Court on 22.12.1995 in OJC No. 9561 of 1995, the Respondent No. 3 when approved the proposal submitted by the Managing Committee so constituted on 15.12.1992, the order of approval so issued by the Respondent No. 3 on 03.07.1996, was challenged before this Court in OJC No. 6687 of 1996. This Court vide order dtd.23.07.1999 disposed of both Page 4 of 10 // 5 // OJC No. 80 of 1993 and OJC No. 6687 of 1996 by holding therein that the Managing Committee so approved on 15.12.1992 is incompetent whereas the Managing Committee constituted on 28.12.1992 is the competent one.
Legal Reasoning
3.6. It is contended that since the present Appellant was appointed as against the 2nd post of Peon by the Managing Committee so approved on 28.12.1992. In view of the order passed by this Court on 23.07.1999, the appointment of the Appellant is the valid appointment as against the 2nd post of Peon. The appointment order issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 on 19.12.1992 by the Managing Committee so approved on 15.12.1992 is not a valid appointment in view of the order passed by this Court on 23.07.1999. It is contended that even though all the materials were placed before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal taking into account the fact that Respondent No. 5 was appointed vide order dtd.19.12.1992 and the present Appellant was appointed vide order dtd.08.01.1993 held the services of Respondent No. 5 is required to be approved as against the 2nd post of Peon of the School in question vide the impugned Judgment dtd.14.03.2011. 3.7. It is contended that since the approval of the Managing Committee so made on 15.12.1992 has been declared as incompetent by this Court in its order dtd.23.07.1999, any action Page 5 of 10 // 6 // taken by the said Managing Committee is not legal and justified. But the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the materials placed before it, came to a wrong conclusion and allowed the claim of Respondent No. 5 only on the ground that he was appointed earlier than the present Appellant. It is accordingly contended that the impugned Judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. 4. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned AGA on the other hand contended that since the disputes revolves around the appointment of the Appellant as well as the Respondent No. 5 as against the 2nd post of Peon, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration all the relevant facts so placed by the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 5 and the Managing Committee of the School. Mr. Samal contended that the Tribunal only on the ground that the Respondent No. 5 was appointed earlier than the Appellant, allowed the claim of the Respondent No. 5 while rejecting the claim of the present Appellant. The Tribunal has not taken into account the order passed by this Court on 23.07.1999, while disposing OJC No. 80 of 1993 and OJC No. 6687 of 1996. 5. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by him before the Tribunal. It Page 6 of 10 // 7 // is contended that Respondent No. 5 was appointed as against the 2nd post of Peon vide order dtd.19.12.1992. Since in the said order it was wrongly indicated that the same was issued in terms of resolution of the Managing Committee dtd.27.12.1992, the then Secretary of the Managing Committee issued a corrigendum on 28.12.1992 by clarifying therein that the Respondent No. 5 was so appointed in terms of resolution dtd.13.03.1992. It is contended that in view of such clarification issued by the then Secretary of the Managing Committee on 28.12.1992, the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 cannot be treated as illegal. It is also contended that the Respondent No. 5 was appointed by the Managing Committee so approved by the Inspector of Schools on 15.12.1992 and the Appellant was appointed by the Managing Committee, which was approved by the Respondent No. 3 on 28.12.1992 on 08.01.1993. It is also contended that since the approval of the Managing Committee so made by the Respondent No. 3 on 28.12.1992 was stayed by this Court vide order dtd.11.01.1993, the appointment of the Appellant by the Managing Committee so approved on 28.12.1992 with order of appointment issued on 08.01.1993 is not legal and justified. Accordingly, it is contended that since the Respondent No. 5 was appointed earlier than the Appellant as against the 2nd post of Peon, the Tribunal has rightly allowed his claim while rejecting the claim of the Appellant. Page 7 of 10 // 8 // 6. I have heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State- Respondents and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5. On the consent of all the Parties, the appeal
Decision
was finally heard at the stage of admission and disposed of vide the present order. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the dispute revolves around the so called order of appointment issued in favour of Respondent No. 5 on 19.12.1992 by the Managing Committee so approved by the Respondent No. 3 on 15.12.1992 and order of appointment issued in favour of the Appellant on 08.01.1993 by the Managing Committee approved by the Inspector of Schools vide order dtd.28.12.1992. While it is the claim of the Appellant that the Appellant was appointed as against the 2nd post of Peon by the Managing Committee so approved on 28.12.1992 with order of appointment issued on 08.01.1993, the Respondent No. 5 claims to have been appointed on 19.12.1992 by the Managing Committee so approved on 15.12.1992. It is also found that by the time this Court passed an interim order staying the reconstitution of the Managing Committee so passed on 28.12.1992 vide order dtd.11.01.1993 in OJC No. 80 of 1993, the Appellant Page 8 of 10 // 9 // was already appointed on 08.01.1993 with date of joining as 10.01.1993. It is also found from the record that this Court vide order dtd.23.07.1999 while disposing OJC No. 80 of 1993 and OJC No. 6687 of 1996, held the Managing Committee so approved on 11.12.1992 as incompetent, whereas the Managing Committee so constituted on 28.12.1992 is competent in the eye of law. 7.1. It is found from the record that though all the aforesaid materials were placed before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal as found from the impugned Judgment has not discussed anything with regard to the rival contentions raised by the Appellant and the Respondent No. 5. It is found that the Tribunal only on the ground that the Respondent No. 5 was appointed earlier than the Appellant, allowed his claim to receive the benefit of grant-in-aid while rejecting the claim of the Appellant vide the impugned Judgment dtd.14.03.2011. Since it is found that the Tribunal has not passed a reasoned order by taking into account all the materials placed before it by the respective Parties, this Court is inclined to interfere with the said Judgment. While quashing the said Judgment, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to redecide GIA case No. 184 of 2008 by giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Since the matter is of the year 2008, this Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the GIA case afresh within a period of 6 (six) months Page 9 of 10 // 10 // from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 10 of 10