The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30744 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Rashmita Bindhani …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. N.C. Rout, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Jena, AGA Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 4) Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 5) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 18.04.2024 and Date of Judgment: 07.05.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging Judgment dtd.29.08.2023 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short Tribunal) in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019 under Annexure-9 to the // 2 // writ petition. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal allowed the claim of private opp. Party No. 5 and with a direction on Opp. Party No. 4 to allow Opp. Party No. 5 to resume her duty as against the post of Clerk in Anchalika Sahajoga High School, Noonchati. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the notice issued by the School in the notice board of the then Inspector of Schools, Baripada Circle on 30.04.2000, Petitioner duly participated in the selection process and Managing Committee of the School vide its Resolution No. 82 dtd.05.05.2000 resolved to appoint the Petitioner as against the post of Clerk. Accordingly, Petitioner was appointed vide order of appointment issued on 05.05.2000. Pursuant to the order of appointment so issued on 05.05.2000, Petitioner joined as against the post of Clerk in the School in question on 03.07.2000.
Legal Reasoning
Managing committee, he approached this Court initially in W.P.(C) No. 1109 of 2019. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in its order dtd.07.02.2009, Petitioner filed the appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 4 contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 was allowed to continue in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner in terms of the Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 vide Annexure-J/4 with letter of appointment issued on 31.05.2007 under Page 12 of 21 // 13 // Annexure-K/4 and Opp. Party No. 5 joined in the said leave vacancy on 18.06.2007 vide Annexure-L/4, Opp. Party No. 5 cannot claim himself to have been appointed as against the post of Clerk on regular basis. It is also contended that though Opp. Party No. 5 claims himself to have been appointed in terms of Resolution No. 98 dtd.31.05.2007, but no such Resolution was ever passed by the Managing Committee nor it was produced by Opp. Party No. 5 before the Tribunal. In the alternate while filing its counter, Opp. Party No. 4 not only produced Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 but also letter of appointment issued in favour of Opp. Party No. 5 on 31.05.2007 in terms of Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007. Opp. Party No. 5 also by reflecting the Resolution Number, joined on 18.06.2007 vide Annexure-L/4. 4.5. It is contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 never produced copy of Resolution No. 98 dtd.31.05.2007 basing on which he was so appointed as against the post of Clerk, the Tribunal should not have held that Opp. Party No. 5 was appointed on regular basis in terms of such Resolution. But Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 clearly reveals that Opp. Party No. 5 was allowed to continue as against the post of Clerk in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner and such engagement is till Petitioner rejoined. Page 13 of 21 // 14 // 4.6. Even though in its proceeding dtd.20.07.2007 under Annexure-N/4, the Managing Committee resolved to allow the Petitioner to rejoin in terms of the joining letter submitted on 01.07.2007 under Annexure- M/4, but because of the illegal action of the Secretary of the Managing Committee at the relevant point of time, Petitioner was not allowed to rejoin. But in terms of the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its proceeding dtd.08.07.2017 vide Resolution No. 165 (Kha) under Annexure-P/4, Petitioner was allowed to rejoin with letter issued on dtd.08.07.2017 under Annexure-Q/4, where she joined on 13.07.2017 under Annexure-R/4. 4.7. Petitioner since 13.07.2017 is also continuing as against the post of Clerk and Opp. Party No. 5 w.e.f.13.07.2017 is not in employment as against the post of Clerk. But by making a false allegation that he was prevented from discharging his duty, which amounts to termination, he preferred an appeal in terms of the liberty granted by this Court. The Tribunal without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Managing Committee and the documents filed along with the counter affidavit, allowed the claim vide the impugned Judgment. It is accordingly contended that the impugned Judgment so passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law. Page 14 of 21 // 15 // 5. Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken by Opp. Party No. 3 before the Tribunal. It is contended that Anchalika Sahajoga High School, Noonchati was granted permission for establishment of the School w.e.f. the academic session 1993-94 and recognition of the school was accorded from the academic session 1996-97. The school while so continuing, was notified as an Aided Educational Institution vide notification dtd.24.09.2015. 5.1. It is contended that in terms of the Resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 05.05.2000 under Annexure-A/3 series, Petitioner joined as against the post of Clerk on 03.07.2020 in terms of order dtd.05.05.2000 so issued by the Managing Committee vide Annexure-A/3 series to the counter filed in the Appeal. 5.2. It is contended that while so continuing Petitioner when made an application on 05.07.2004 with a prayer to grant her leave till recovery from her illness vide Annexure-B/3, Petitioner was allowed to remain on such leave. But when the Managing Committee directed the Petitioner to rejoin, Petitioner submitted her joining on 24.08.2006 vide Annexure-C/3. But thereafter, Petitioner again remained on leave from 24.04.2007 by submitting application in that regard on 20.04.2007 and Page 15 of 21 // 16 // such leave application of the Petitioner was also accepted by the Managing Committee in its Resolution No. 111 (Kha) dtd.24.04.2007 under Annexure-D/3 series. 5.3. It is also contended that vide Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 under Annexure-E/3, Opp. Party No. 4 resolved to appoint Opp. Party No. 5 temporarily in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner. Pursuant to such Resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 31.05.2007 vide Resolution No. 112, Opp. Party No. 5 pursuant to the order of appointment issued on 31.05.2007, joined as a Clerk on 18.06.2007 in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner. 5.4. It is contended that Petitioner after recovering from her illness though submitted her joining on 01.07.2007 and also made several applications to accept her joining vide Annexure-F/3 series, but the same was kept pending. But ultimately the Managing Committee in its Resolution No. 165 (Kha) dtd.08.07.2017 resolved to terminate Opp. Party No. 5 and allowed the Petitioner to rejoin under Annexure-G/3 series. Pursuant to the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its Resolution dtd.08.07.2017, Petitioner was permitted to rejoin vide letter issued on 08.07.2017, where she joined on 13.07.2017 under Annexure- G/3 series. Page 16 of 21 // 17 // 5.5. It is contended that since the School became eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid vide notification dtd.24.09.2015, proposal was submitted by the Managing Committee reflecting names of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School vide letter dtd.14.12.2018 under Annexure-H/3 series. In the said proposal name of the Petitioner though was there, but the same was not approved, as the date of joining of the Petitioner was shown as 08.07.2017. But subsequently, the Managing Committee though requested the Inspector of schools for approval of her services, but no action was taken because of the pendency of Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019. 5.6. Mr. Jena, learned AGA accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 was appointed as against the leave vacancy of the Petitioner in terms of Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007, where he joined on 18.06.2007, the Tribunal should have taken into consideration the stand of the present Petitioner and that of the Managing Committee while deciding the issue in favour of Opp. Party No. 5. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that Opp. Party No. 5 moved the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019 alleging therein that he was prevented from discharging his duty as against the Page 17 of 21 // 18 // post of Clerk. But in the memo of appeal so available in the case record, no specific date has been indicated as to from which date Opp. Party No. 5 was so prevented from discharging his duty. 6.1. Even though Opp. Party No. 5 claims himself to have been appointed as against the post of Peon in terms of Resolution No. 98 dtd.31.05.2007, but copy of such Resolution was never produced by the Petitioner either before the Tribunal even before this Court. 6.2. Even though after such joining of Opp. Party No. 5 on 18.06.2007 his name was reflected in the renewal recognition form submitted by the Managing Committee w.e.f. academic session 2006-07, but since the Resolution basing on which Opp. Party No. 5 claims to have been appointed as against the post of Clerk with order of appointment issued on dtd.31.05.2007, was never produced, the Tribunal in absence of the same should have relied on the stand taken by the present Petitioner as well as by the Managing Committee – Opp. Party No. 4 that Opp. Party No. 5 was appointed as against the leave vacancy of the Petitioner in terms of the Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 under Annexure-J/4. 6.3. As found from the record in terms of Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007, Opp. Party No. 5 was appointed as against the post of Clerk vide order of appointment issued on 31.05.2007 under Annexure- Page 18 of 21 // 19 // K/4 in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner. Not only that in terms of such order of appointment issued, Opp. Party No. 5 joined on 18.06.2007 under Annexure-L/4. In all those documents starting from Annexure-J/4 to L/4, the Resolution Number was indicated as Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007. Since vide Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007, the Managing Committee – Opp. Party No. 4 resolved to appoint Opp. Party No. 5 as against the leave vacancy of the Petitioner, Opp. Party No. 5 cannot raise a claim that he was appointed on regular basis as against the post of Clerk. Petitioner though after such appointment of Opp. Party No. 5, submitted her joining on 01.07.2007 under Annexure-M/4, but the same on the face of the Resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 20.07.2007 under Annexure-N/4, Petitioner was not allowed to rejoin. 6.4. However, in terms of Resolution No. 165 (Kha) dtd.08.07.2017 under Annexure-P/4, Petitioner was allowed to rejoin and accordingly the Managing Committee issued a letter on dtd.08.07.2017 under Annexure-Q/4. In terms of letter dtd.08.07.2017 under Annexure-Q/4, Petitioner was allowed to rejoin on 13.07.2017 vide Annexure-R/4. In its proceeding dtd.03.07.2017 Managing Committee clearly indicated that Opp. Party No. 5 was appointed as against the leave vacancy of the Page 19 of 21 // 20 // Petitioner in terms of the decision taken vide Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007. 6.5. It is also found from the record that no document was ever produced by Opp. Party No. 5 before the Tribunal showing himself to have been appointed vide order of appointment issued on 31.05.2007 by facing due recruitment process so initiated by the Managing Committee. However, from the record it is found that Petitioner in terms of the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its Resolution dtd.10.04.2000 under Annexure-A/4 and subsequent Resolution dtd.05.05.2000 under Annexure-B/4, after facing due selection process, was issued with the order of appointment on 05.05.2000 under Annexure-C/4. 6.6. Since Petitioner was duly appointed as against the post of Clerk by facing due selection process and Opp. Party No. 5 was appointed as against the leave vacancy in terms of Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 under Annexure-J/4, claim of Opp. Party No. 5 that he was regularly appointed and was prevented from discharging his duty by the Managing Committee, as per the considered view of this Court is not acceptable. But on the face of the documents so produced by the Managing Committee – Opp. Party No. 4 and the Petitioner as well as Page 20 of 21 // 21 // the stand taken by the Inspector of Schools – Opp. Party No. 3, the Tribunal as per the considered view of this Court came to a wrong conclusion that Opp. Party No. 5 was duly appointed as against the post of Clerk vide order of appointment issued on 31.05.2007 under Annexure-2 to the appeal memo. The Tribunal in absence of any pleading made by Opp. Party No. 5, as to from which date he was as such prevented from discharging his duty could not have accepted such plea while allowing the claim of Opp. Party No. 5 vide the impugned Judgment. 7. In view of such analysis as indicated above, this Court is inclined to quash the Judgment dtd.29.08.2023 so passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019 and quash the same accordingly.
Arguments
2.1. It is contended that on such joining of the Petitioner as against the post of Clerk on 03.07.2000, name of the Petitioner was reflected in the renewal recognition form submitted by the School w.e.f. the year 2000- 01 onwards. However, while so continuing, because of her illness, Petitioner remained on leave w.e.f.05.07.2004 with due intimation to the Managing Committee. Since Petitioner after remaining on leave w.e.f.05.07.2004 extended her leave from time to time, one Sujata Sur Page 2 of 21 // 3 // was allowed to continue as against the post in question in the leave vacancy of the Petitioners. But in the meantime basing on the Resolution No. 110 (Kha) dtd.09.08.2006, vide Annexure-F/4 to the counter filed by Opp. Party No. 4 in the GIA case, Petitioner when was issued with the notice on 09.08.2006 by the Managing Committee with a direction to join immediately, failing which action shall be taken against the Petitioner as per Rule, Petitioner joined in the post on 24.08.2006 vide Annexure-G/4. 2.2. It is contended that Petitioner though rejoined in her post on 24.08.2006, but because of her illness she again remained on leave w.e.f.24.04.2007 vide leave application submitted on dtd.20.04.2007 under Annexure-H/4. Since Petitioner again remained on leave w.e.f.24.04.2007, the aforesaid Sujata Sur was allowed to continue in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner. But when the said Sujata Sur expressed her unwillingness to continue further, in terms of the Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 under Annexure-J/4, Opp. Party No. 5 was allowed to work in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner. Accordingly, Opp. Party No. 5 was issued with the letter of appointment vide letter No. 226 dtd.31.05.2007 vide Annexure-K/4 and he joined as such on 18.06.2007 vide Annexure- L/4. Page 3 of 21 // 4 // 2.3. It is contended that after recovering from her illness Petitioner submitted her joining report on 01.07.2007 under Annexure-M/4 and the same was placed before the Managing Committee in its proceeding dtd.20.07.2007 under Annexure-N/4. Even though the then Managing Committee in its Resolution No. 113 (Ka) dtd.20.07.2007 unanimously resolved to allow the Petitioner to join in her post, but the then Secretary of the Managing Committee namely Pruthunath Kisku with having malafide intention and ulterior motive did not allow the Petitioner to rejoin. Petitioner though made series of applications before the Managing Committee, but the matter was kept pending, till vide Resolution No. 165 (Kha) dtd.08.07.2017 under Annexure-P/4, Petitioner was allowed to rejoin in her post of Clerk. In terms of the letter issued on 08.07.2017 under Annexure-Q/4, Petitioner joined in the post of Clerk on 13.07.2017 vide Annexure-R/4. Name of the present Petitioner was also forwarded along with other employees in the renewal recognition submitted for the year 2018-19 under Annexure-S/4. 2.4. As in the meantime School became eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid, Managing Committee vide letter dtd.14.12.2018 under Annexure-H/3 to the counter filed by Opp. Party No. 3 before the Page 4 of 21 // 5 // Tribunal forwarded the claim of all teaching and non-teaching staff of the School for approval of their services. 2.5. It is contended that though the services of all the teaching and non- teaching staff of the school was approved by Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.21.12.2019 under Annexure-I/3 series, but because of the dispute pending at the instance of Opp. Party No. 5 in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019, services of the present Petitioner was not approved nor the post of Clerk was also approved. 2.6. It is contended that Petitioner though was allowed to rejoin in her post w.e.f.13.07.2017 and since then she was not only allowed to continue but also continuing as such till date, Opp. Party No. 5 never challenged such action of the Managing Committee in allowing the Petitioner to rejoin on 13.07.2017 vide Annexure-R/4. But by taking a plea that Opp. Party No. 5 is being prevented by the Managing Committee from discharging his duty, which amounts to termination, he approached the Tribunal by filing Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019 inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to declare the action of the opposite party no. 4 in preventing the appellant to be illegal and without jurisdiction and direct the opposite party no. 4 to reinstate the appellant in his former post and allow him to continue as such. Page 5 of 21 // 6 // And further the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Opp. Party No. 1 to 3 to grant all the consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible to the appellant. And/or pass any other appropriate order/orders in the fitness of the case. And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the applicant shall ever pray.” 2.7. Though in the memo of appeal nothing was indicated as to from which date Opp. Party No. 5 was so prevented from discharging his duty, but the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the materials placed before it by the present Petitioner as well as by the Managing Committee-Opp. Party No. 4, allowed the claim of Opp. Party No. 5 vide impugned Judgment dtd.29.08.2023 in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019 under Annexure-9. While allowing such claim of Opp. Party No. 5, the Managing Committee-Opp. Party No. 4 was also directed to allow Opp. Party No. 5 to rejoin as against the post of Clerk. 2.8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 in terms of the Resolution passed by the Managing Committee vide Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 under Annexure-J/4, allowed Opp. Party No. 5 to work as against the post of Clerk in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner and accordingly letter of appointment was issued on 18.06.2007 under Annexure-K/4. But by claiming himself to have been appointed on regular basis and by alleging prevention by the Page 6 of 21 // 7 // Managing Committee from discharging his duty, Opp. Party No. 5 filed the appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019. 2.9. It is contended that even though Opp. Party No. 5 was issued with the letter of appointment on 31.05.2007 vide Annexure-K/4 as against the leave vacancy of the Petitioner and subsequently on joining of the Petitioner after recovering from her illness on 01.07.2007, though Petitioner was allowed by the Managing Committee to join as such in its Resolution No. 113 (Ka) dtd.20.07.2007 under Annexure-N/4, but due to illegal action of the then Secretary of the Managing Committee, Petitioner was not allowed to discharge her duty w.e.f.01.07.2007. 2.10. After several approach being made, the Managing Committee vide Resolution No. 165 (Kha) dt.08.07.2017 under Annexure-P/4 allowed the Petitioner to join, where she joined on 13.07.2017 vide Annexure-R/4. Though w.e.f.13.07.2017, Opp. Party No. 5 was not allowed to continue and is also not in service, but by taking a plea that he was prevented from discharging his duty and such termination violates the provisions contained under Sec. 10-A of the Odisha Education Act, the appeal was preferred before the Tribunal with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. Page 7 of 21 // 8 // 2.11. It is contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 was never appointed on regular basis by facing due recruitment process and he was only allowed to continue in terms of the Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 in the leave vacancy of the Petitioner vide Annexure-J/4, the claim so made by Opp. Party No. 5 could not have been allowed by the Tribunal on the face of the stand taken by the present Petitioner and the Managing Committee-Opp. Party No. 4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned Judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be interfered with by this Court. 3. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 5 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the memo of appeal. It is contended that Opp. Party No. 5 was never appointed as against the leave vacancy of the Petitioner vide Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007. In the alternate in terms of Managing Committee Resolution No. 98 dtd.31.05.2007, he was appointed as against the post of Clerk on regular basis vide Annexure-2 to the appeal memo and in terms of the said order he joined on 18.06.2007 vide Annexure-3. Subsequent to his joining as against the post of Clerk on 18.06.2007, w.e.f. academic session 2006-07, name of Opp. Party No. 5 was reflected as against the post of Clerk in the renewal recognition form so submitted by the Managing Committee vide Annexure-4 series. Page 8 of 21 // 9 // 3.1. In the meantime vide notification dtd.24.09.2015 under Annexure- 1, when the School was notified to be an Aided Educational Institution, Opp. Party No. 5 was prevented from discharging his duty and name of Petitioner was reflected in the renewal recognition form w.e.f. academic session 2017-18 vide Annexure-5 and her name was also forwarded by the Managing Committee for approval as against the post of Clerk. 3.2. It is contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 was duly appointed as against the post of Clerk in terms of the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its Resolution No. 98 dtd.31.05.2007, where he joined on 18.06.2007, the action of Opp. Party No. 4 in not allowing him to discharge his duty, amounts to termination. Since Opp. Party No. 5 when was prevented from discharging his duty, the School was already notified to be eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid vide Notification dt.24.09.2015 under Annexure-1, prior to taking such action, Opp. Party No. 4 should have obtained prior permission in terms of the provisions contained under Sec. 10-A of the Odisha Education Act. Since no prior permission was ever taken as provided under Sec. 10-A of the Odisha Education Act, such action of the Managing Committee is not sustainable in the eye of law. Page 9 of 21 // 10 // 3.3. Mr. Mishra accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 while continuing as against the post of Clerk w.e.f.18.06.2007 on being duly appointed vide order of appointment issued on 31.05.2007 under Annexure-2, without compliance of the provisions of Sec. 10-A of the Act, was prevented from discharging his duty by the Managing Committee, Opp. Party No. 5 rightly approached the Tribunal in filing the appeal in question. The Tribunal after proper appreciation of the stand taken by the present Opp. Party No. 5 and the Managing Committee vis-a-vis the Petitioner, rightly allowed the claim vide the Judgment in question, which requires no interference. 4. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Managing Committee-Opp. Party No. 4 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2019. It is contended that pursuant to the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its Resolution dtd.10.04.2000 vide Annexure-A/4 to the counter filed in the Appeal, the Managing Committee decided to fill up one post of Clerk and one post of Peon. Basing on such Resolution and the notice issued in that regard, Petitioner duly participated in the selection process and in terms of the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its Resolution dtd.05.05.2000 under Annexure-B/4, Petitioner was appointed as Page 10 of 21 // 11 // against the post of Clerk vide order of appointment issued on 05.05.2000 under Annexure-C/4. Pursuant to the said order of appointment, Petitioner joined on 03.07.2000 vide Annexure-D/4. On such joining of the Petitioner as against the post of Clerk on 03.07.2000, her name was also reflected in the renewal recognition form submitted by the Managing Committee w.e.f. academic session 2000-01 vide Annexure-E/4. 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing Petitioner remained on leave w.e.f.24.04.2007 with submission of the leave application on 20.04.2007 under Annexure-H/4. In such leave vacancy of the Petitioner, Opp. Party No. 5 in terms of the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its Resolution No. 112 dtd.31.05.2007 vide Annexure-J/4 was appointed vide letter No. 226 dtd.31.05.2007 under Annexure-K/4. In terms of such letter of appointment issued under Annexure-K/4, Opp. Party No. 5 submitted his joining on 18.06.2007 under Annexure-L/4 with due acceptance. 4.2. It is contended that after such joining of Opp. Party No. 5 on 18.06.2007, Petitioner after recovering from her illness, submitted her joining on 01.07.2007 vide Annexure-M/4. The Managing Committee in its Resolution No. 113(Ka) dtd.20.07.2007 under Anenxure-N/4 Page 11 of 21 // 12 // though resolved to allow the Petitioner to rejoin and requested the Secretary to do the needful, but due to illegal action of the Secretary of the Managing Committee at the relevant point of time, Petitioner was not allowed to join w.e.f.01.07.2007. However, vide Resolution No. 165 (Kha) dtd.08.07.2017 under Annexure-P/4, Opp. Party No. 4 resolved to allow the Petitioner to rejoin and accordingly Petitioner rejoined as against the post of Clerk on 13.07.2017 vide Annexure-R/4, pursuant to the letter issued by the Managing Committee on 08.07.2017 under Annexure-Q/4. 4.3. It is contended that after 13.07.2017, Opp. Party No. 5 is neither in the pay roll of the school nor in service as against the post of Clerk. But by taking a plea that he was prevented from discharging his duty by the
Decision
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 7th of May, 2024/Sneha (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-May-2024 16:43:21 Page 21 of 21