The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.16268 of 2023 Satish Chandra Mohanta ..... Petitioner Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
Decision
ORDER 26.06.2024 Order No. 06 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. N. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.21.02.2023 so passed by the Block Education Officer, Morada-Opp. Party No. 5 under Annexure-19. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner for his adjustment in any other school was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Headmaster in Dhadasahi U.P. School, because of closure of the School due to less enrolment of students, Petitioner vide letter dtd.08.09.2015 under Annexure-5 was directed to take up classes in Badadhera Adarsha U.P. School. Page 1 of 5. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner thereafter was allowed to take classes in the school in question. But w.e.f.31.03.2016 when the Petitioner was not adjusted nor allowed to take classes, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12175 of 2017 claiming benefit of the salary. This Court vide order dtd.04.11.2019 held that since Petitioner in view of closure of the school as is not continuing, he may take step to get the benefit from the Managing Committee of the School in question. 4.2. It is contended that thereafter, Petitioner made various applications seeking his adjustment in any other school as he was not allowed to take classes after 31.03.2016 because of closure of his parent school. It is contended that when no action was taken with regard to his prayer for adjustment, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 37957 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.04.12.2021 permitted the Petitioner to make an appropriate application before the competent authority for consideration of his claim. Petitioner accordingly moved Opp. Party No. 2 on 13.01.2022 vide Annexure-15. Thereafter, even though a report was submitted by B.E.O. vide his letter dtd.15.11.2022 under Annexure-17 favouring such adjustment, but claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of adjustment in any other school was rejected vide impugned order dtd.21.02.2023 under Annexure-19. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was continuing as an approved teacher and school in which he was continuing was closed because of inadequate strength, Petitioner should have been adjusted in any other school. But without proper appreciation of his claim, the same was rejected vide order dtd.21.02.2023 under Annexure-19. Page 2 of 5. 4.4. It is also contended that similar prayer for adjustment due to closure of school was the subject matter of dispute in W.P.(C) No. 10848 of 2016. This Court vide order dtd.29.07.2016 when directed the concerned authority to adjust the Petitioner therein, the matter was challenged by the State before this Court in Writ Appeal No. 545 of 2016. It is contended that after dismissal of the Writ Appeal vide order dtd.11.01.2019, Petitioner therein was adjusted, where he joined on 13.06.2019 as found from the communication dtd.03.12.2019 of Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-21. 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since person similarly situated was adjusted pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10848 of 2016, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 5. It is contended that since Petitioner was continuing in Non-Govt. aided School, which was in receipt of Grant-in-aid, after closure of the School in terms of the decision taken by the District Project Coordinator vide his order dtd.26.08.2015 under Annexure-A/5, Petitioner has no right of adjustment. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No. 5 after considering the claim of the Petitioner has rightly rejected the claim of the Petitioner vide the impugned order and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner Page 3 of 5. while continuing as Headmaster in Dhadasahi U.P. School, because of the closure of the school, he was initially directed to take up classes in another school. But thereafter, w.e.f.31.03.2016 when the Petitioner was not allowed to take up classes nor he was extended with the benefit of Grant-in-aid, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12175 of 2017. When this Court was not inclined to pass any direction for release of the benefit, Petitioner made various applications seeking his adjustment in any other school. As the same was not considered, Petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 37957 of 2021. 6.1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Petitioner when made a representation under Annexure-15, the same after being considered by Opp. Party No. 5, was rejected vide impugned order dtd.21.02.2023 under Annexure-19. But as found from the record, similarly situated Primary School Teacher, who faced disengagement because of closure of the School, was adjusted in terms of the order passed by this Curt in W.P.(C) No. 10848 of 2016. 6.2. Since similar benefit of adjustment has been allowed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10848 of 2016, this Court on that ground only is inclined to quash order dtd.21.02.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No. 5 under Annexure- 19. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision with regard to claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of adjustment in any other school. Such a fresh decision as directed be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is however observed that while taking such a decision, benefit extended in Page 4 of 5. favour of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10848 of 2016 shall be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Jun-2024 18:48:24 Page 5 of 5.