The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO NOs.816 & 817 of 2018 Sarbeswar Lenka …. Appellant Mr. K.K. Swain, Adv. -versus- A. State of Odisha & Others … Respondent State Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 06.02.2024 9. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Both the FAOs have been filed by the appellant challenging the common judgment passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short <Tribunal=) on 04.10.2018 in GIA Case No.864 of 2012 and GIA Case No.513 of 2016. 4. It is the case of the appellant that appellant filed GIA Case No.513 of 2016 challenging the order passed by Respondent No.2 on dt.23.06.2016 wherein Opp. Party No.2 requested the Sub-Collector-cum-President of the Governing Body of Astasambhu Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Chandrasekhar to take immediate disciplinary action against the appellant on the ground that appellant is under qualified having no proper percentage of mark in his M.A. qualification and he is not eligible to hold the post of Lecturer in History. 4.1. Similarly GIA Case No.864 of 2012 was filed by the present Respondent No.5, challenging the order of approval, approving the services of Appellant as against the post of Lecturer in History, vide order dt.22.03.2012 of Respondent No.2. The Tribunal vide a common order passed on 04.10.2018 while allowed the claim of Respondent No.5 so made in GIA Case No. 864 of 2012, rejected the claim of appellant in GIA
Legal Reasoning
Case NO.513 of 2016. Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed both the appeals. 4.2. It is the case of the appellant that appellant was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in History where he joined on 20.09.1996. Even though Respondent No.5 was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Political Science, but the post of Lecturer in Political Science was not admissible taking into account the workload as provided in the guideline issued by the Government on 15.10.1987. The services of the present appellant accordingly was approved vide order dt.22.03.2012 of Respondent No.2 as against the post of Lecturer in History, whereas the services of the Respondent No.5 was not approved on the plea that post of Lecturer in Political Science is not admissible to the College. Challenging the order of approval issued in favour of the appellant on 22.03.2012, Respondent No.5 filed GIA Case No.864 of 2012. 4.3. During pendency of the matter in GIA Case No.864 of 2012, when Respondent No.2 vide order dt.23.06.2016 directed the Governing Body of the College for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding Page 2 of 7 against the appellant on the plea that Appellant was under qualified with having no proper percentage of mark in his M.A in History and accordingly, he is not eligible to held the post, GIA Case No.513 of 2016 was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal challenging the order dt.23.06.2016. The Tribunal taking into account the nature of claim made by the Appellant and Respondent NO.5, took up both the matters and while allowing the claim of Respondent No.5 vide Judgemnt dt.04.10.2018 rejected the claim of the present Appellant vide the self-same order. The Tribunal directed Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to approve the services of Respondent No.5 as against the Post of Lecturer in Political Science and release Block Grant in his favour with consequential benefits. But the Tribunal did not interfere with the order passed by the Director on 23.06.2016 while rejecting the claim so made in GIA Case No.513 of 2016. 5. This Court considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 found that appellant while was appointed as against the Post of Lecturer in History, Respondent No.5 was appointed as against the Post of Lecturer in Political Science. The services of the appellant was approved as against the post of Lecturer in History vide order dt.22.03.2012 and the services of Respondent No.4 when was not approved, he made a claim for his approval which was allowed vide judgment dt. 04.10.2018 in question. Submission was made by the Page 3 of 7 learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 with regard to the mark secured by the appellant in his M.A examination and order of appointment being issued by the Governing Body without verifying the mark so secured by the appellant. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 contended that Appellant in his M.A in History though had secured 416 mark, but by producing a fake marksheet showing therein to have secured 446 marks, he was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in History. When the same was brought notice of the Director, Respondent No.2 after due consideration of the same found that appellant has in fact been appointed without having the required percentage of mark and accordingly directed the Governing Body to initiate Disciplinary action vide order dt.23.06.2016. 6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that even if the mark of the appellant will be taken at 416, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-4(2)(d) of the Orissa Education Service (Higher Secondary Branch)(Methods of Recruitment and conditions of service), 1991, appellant since had secured more than 48% mark in his M.A. examination, he was eligible to get the benefit of appointment and no illegality is there with his appointment. 7. This Court considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 Page 4 of 7 when directed the University to produce the mark secured by the appellant in his M.A. Examination,
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel appearing for the University produced the marksheet of the appellant in a sealed cover. This Court after going through the same finds that the appellant in fact has secured 416 mark in his M.A examination held in the year 1996. But it is found that the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant since produced a fake marksheet by showing his marks at 446 got the benefit of appointment, accordingly was not inclined to interfere with the direction issued by Respondent NO.2 in his order dt.23.06.2016. The Tribunal also held the appellant not to have the required percentage of mark in his M.A Examination for his appointment as Lecturer in History. 8. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 contended that at the relevant point of time taking into account the workload, Lecturer in Pol. Science was also admissible and accordingly Tribunal allowed his claim. But learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that as per the workload prevailing at the time of appointment of Respondent No.4, post of Lecturer in Political Science was not admissible. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that appellant though claims to have been appointed in the year1994 i.e. on 08.09.1994, but he passed his M.A examination only in the year 1996. Therefore, Respondent No.4 could not have been appointed as Page 5 of 7 against the post of Lecturer in Political Science in the year 1994. The aforesaid plea though was raised by the appellant, but the Tribunal without considering the said aspect, allowed the claim of the Respondent No.4, while rejecting the claim of the present appellant. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the dispute revolves around with regard to the marks secured by the Appellant in his M.A. examination and the marksheet produced by him at the time of his appointment and so also the date of passing of the M.A Examination by Respondent No.4 by the time he was so appointed with the workload in both the stream i.e. History and Political Science. Considering the submission made and the materials placed by the learned counsels for the appellant and Respondent No.5, this Court is of the view that the matter requires fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. The ground on which the claim of the appellant was rejected while allowing the claim of Respondent No.5 vide the impugned common judgment dt.04.10.2018 , as per the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9.1. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the common judgment dt. 04.10.2018 so passed by the Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.864 of 2012 and GIA Case NO.513 of 2016. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to take up both the matters afresh and decide the same Page 6 of 7 in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 9.2. It is observed that the appellant in both the GIA cases will be allowed to file further documents in support of their respective claim and all such documents will be filed within a period of 15 days from the date of their appearance. In order to cut-short the delay, this Court directs learned counsels appearing for the appellant and Respondent No.5 to appear before the Tribunal along with the certified copy of this order on 06.03.2024. On their appearance, appellant will be permitted to file their further documents, if any, by filing appropriate application in that regard by 20th March, 2024. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of both the matters in accordance with law by the end of June, 2024, if there is no other legal impediment.
Decision
Both the FAOs are accordingly disposed of. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 15-Feb-2024 13:53:43 Page 7 of 7