The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18458 of 2016 Saipada Biswamohan …. Petitioner Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 3) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 19.01.2024 Order No 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 01.11.2016, though notice has been duly served on Opp. Party No. 4, but nobody has entered appearance as found from the office note. Therefore, notice against Opp. Party No. 4 is treated as sufficient.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why the order of termination of service of the petitioner dated // 2 // 30.111.2013 under Annexure-5 as well as the order of rejection dated.27.07.2016 under Annexure-9 and the order of appointment of the Opp. Party No. 4 dated 30.12.2013 under Annexure-10 shall not be quashed and after hearing the parties this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the order of termination dated 30.11.2013 under Anenxure-5 as well as the order of rejection dated 27.07.2016 under Annexure-9 and the order of appointment dated 30.12.2013 under Annexure-10 of the Opp. party No. 4. Further direction may kindly be issued to the Opp. Party No. 3 to re-engage the petitioner as Date Entry Operator and to allow him to continue in said college.” 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner on being found suitable, he was engaged as SAMS DEO (Data Entry Operator) on contractual basis vide order of engagement issued in his favour on 10.01.2013 under Anenxure-4. It is contended that while so continuing and without issuing any show-cause and without assigning any reason whatsoever, the services of the Petitioner was terminated w.e.f.01.12.2013 vide order dtd.30.11.2013 so issued by the Principal-Opp. Party No. 3 under Anenxure-5. 4.1. Petitioner challenging such illegal action of the Opp. Party No. 3 moved the Opp. Party No. 1 by making a representation on 04.12.2013 under Annexure-6. When the same was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28075 of 2013. This Court when directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the same, Opp. Party No. 1 was not inclined to interfere with the order of termination by holding that the claim of the Petitioner as contained in his representation under Annexure-6 bears no merits for consideration at his stage and hence the same is rejected. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that not only Petitioner was illegally terminated vide order dtd.30.11.2013 without assigning any reason, but the Principal with malafide intention appointed Opp. Party No. 4 as against the post, in which the Petitioner was originally appointed vide order dtd.30.12.2013 under Annexure-10, just one month after the termination. It is accordingly contended that since without assigning any reason and without issuing any show-cause, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.30.11.2013 under Annexure-5 which has been upheld by the Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.27.07.2016 under Annexure-9, the order passed under Annexure-5 & 9 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Opp. Party No. 3 on his appearance when filed a counter affidavit justifying the termination of the Petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 14.11.2023:- “2. Considering the office note, notice against Opposite Party No.4 is treated as sufficient. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3 is directed to obtain instruction as to the reason for terminating the services of the Petitioner vide order dtd.30.11.2013 and engaging Opposite Party No.4 in his place vide order dtd.30.12.2013 under Annexure-10. Such instruction be provided to this Court by the next date. 5. As requested, list this matter on 1st of December, 2023.” 5.1. But in terms of the order dtd.14.11.2023, when on the next date nobody entered appearance on behalf of Opp. Party No. 3, the following order was passed on 01.12.2023:- Page 3 of 6 // 4 // “2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. On the face of the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2023, nobody entered appearance on behalf of Opp. Party No. 3 in Court today. 4. Considering the nature of dispute involved, this Court thinks it proper to issue fresh notice on Opp. Party No. 3 by Special Messenger, cost of which shall be assessed and deposit be made by tomorrow (02.12.2023). 5. Office is directed to indicate in the notice that the matter will be taken up by this Court on 12th December, 2023. 6. List this matter on 12.12.2023.” 5.2. In terms of order dtd.01.12.2023 when notice was again served on Opp. Party No. 3, the earlier engaged counsel appeared before this Court and contended that he will comply the order so passed by this Court on 14.11.2023. Basing on such undertaking given by the engaged counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3, the following order was passed on 12.12.2023:- “2. Even though Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel was earlier appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 after being served with the notice, but Mr. Mohanty when did not appear before this Court on 01.12.2023 on the face of the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2023, this Court issued fresh notice on Opp. Party No. 3 by Special Messenger. 3. Today when the matter was taken up, Mr. B.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 3 contended that he may be permitted to continue with his appearance on behalf of Opp. Party No. 3 and he will comply the order dtd.14.11.2023 by filing appropriate affidavit in that regard. 4. Considering the submissions made by Mr. Mohanty, list this matter on 19.12.2023. Necessary affidavit be filed on or before 19.12.2023. If on the next date, nobody will enter Page 4 of 6 // 5 // appearance on behalf of Opp. Party No. 3, this Court will be constrained to direct for personal appearance of Opp. Party No. 3.” 5.3. Today, when the matter was taken up, Opp. Party No. 3 prayed for further time to comply the order dt.14.11.2023. This Court taking into account the fact that Petitioner is going without service w.e.f.2013, was not inclined to allow any further time as prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 and heard the matter finally basing on the materials available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner was appointed as against the post of SAMS DEO (Data Entry Operator) on contractual basis vide order dtd.10.01.2013 under Anenxure-4. The order of termination so passed against the Petitioner vide order dtd.30.11.2013 under Annexure-5 as found has been issued without issuing any show- cause and without assigning any reason. Since in spite of due opportunity, Opp. Party No. 3 failed to satisfy this Court as to the reason for terminating the services of Petitioner vide order dt.30.11.2013 under Annexure-5 and engaging Opp. Party No. 4 vide order dt.30.12.2013 under Annexure-10, this Court while accepting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, is of the view that Petitioner was terminated from his services just to provide appointment to Opp. Party No. 4. This Court accordingly is inclined to quash the order under Annexure-5 and so also the order passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-7. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to reinstate the Petitioner in his services within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to Page 5 of 6 // 6 // provide a copy of this order before Opp. Party No. 3 for compliance.
Decision
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2024 19:53:20 Page 6 of 6