The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No.383 of 2011 Sk.Hasibuddin …. Mr.K.K.Swain, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.T.Patnaik, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 10.04.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer: “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Original Application be allowed:- A N D a) The impugned order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools under Annexure-11 may be quashed/set aside and necessary direction be made to the respondents to allow the applicant to join either at Siaria U.P.(M.E) School or in any other U.P.(M.E) School where vacancy of Urdu Teach is there within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal and the entire period of service for which he was not allowed to join may be regularized and all consequential benefits may be made available to him; A N D b) Any other order/orders or direction/directions be issued so as // 2 // to give complete relief to the applicant.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to a vacancy arose in the post of Urdu Teacher in Brahmabarada U.P.(ME) School, the Petitioner submitted his candidature for being appointed as Urdu Teacher in the said School. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the D.I. of Schools, Jajpur Road vide letter dated 11.07.1996 invited names from the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Urdu Teacher in the abovementioned School. Pursuant to the said letter, the Employment Exchange forwarded the names of the candidates in the list annexed to the Writ Petition containing the names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange wherein the name of the Petitioner appears at Sl.No.15. Thereafter the D.I. of School, Jajpur vide his letter dated 10.09.1996 under Annexure-5 informed the Petitioner pertaining to the interview to be held on 09.10.2016 to fill up the vacancy of one post of Urdu Teacher. Pursuant to the said intimation the Petitioner appeared in the interview and the Petitioner was selected. Accordingly vide Office order dated 21.02.1997 the Petitioner was given appointment as Maulavi Teacher on temporary basis at Siaria U.P.(M.E.) School on temporary basis. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the Petitioner was appointed, he was not allowed to join pursuant to the appointment letter for which the Petitioner submitted a representation before the District Inspector of Schools, Jajpur on 20.02.1998. Thereafter, the D.I. of Schools issued a revised appointment letter under Annexure-8 dated 21.02.1997 appointing the Petitioner as Maulavi Teacher at Kaima U.P.(M.E.) School on temporary basis. It is further contended that even at Kaima U.P.(M.E.) School the Petitioner was not allowed to join as Maulavi Teacher. Thereafter the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3695 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order // 3 // dated 19.02.2010 directing the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.913(C) of 2010. The said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2010 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner within three months. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the Respondent No.2 i.e., D.I. of Schools disposed of the representation vide order dated 29.12.2010 under Annexure-11. 5. On perusal of the order dated 29.12.2010 under Annexure-11 reveals that the D.I. of Schools has disposed of the representation without considering the representation of the Petitioner on merit as directed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The said order further reveals that an affidavit was filed before the said O.A. in November, 2010 stating therein that the recruitment filed is not available in that Office. It was held that the claim of the Petitioner for appointment as a Urdu Teacher (Maulavi) bears no merit. 6. Although the Original Applications was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was transferred to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal, however till date no Counter Affidavit has been filed. On perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-11, this Court is of the considered view that the same is highly illegal and unsustainable in law. This Court is of the further opinion that once the Tribunal disposed of the matter to consider the representation of the Petitioner on merit, it is not open to the authority to reject the representation on the ground that the record is not available by coming to a conclusion that the representation of the Petitioner bears no merit. In fact, there is no consideration on merit of the matter, contrary to the direction given by the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the matter at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-11. // 4 // 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2010 under Annexure-11 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Block Education Officer, Danagadi to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order after taking into consideration the merits of the claim made by the Petitioner. 8. Let the Petitioner approach the Block Education Officer, Danagadi within a period of three weeks from the date of filing representation along with other supporting documents relied upon by him. In the event such a representation is filed, the same shall be dealt with in the manner as has been directed herein above and shall be disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing the representation. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge