The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27228 of 2024 Kailash Chandra Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 02. 1. This matter ORDER 21.11.2024 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “(i) Admit this writ of Quo Warranto application; (ii) Issue notices to the Opposite Party No.3 was selected and appointed as Senior Educator Teacher, DIET, Puri at Annexure-1 dtd.11.04.2018 and subsequent promotion as Principal, DIET, Khallikote at Annexure-2 dtd.19.02.2024. (iii) And any other appropriate order(s) / direction (s)/ writ(s) to be passed / issued to prevent abuse of the process of law as the Opposite Party No.3 is wrongfully occupying a substantive public office, enjoying much privileges when he does not have the authority to do so with a further direction to oust him from the post of Senior // 2 // Teacher Educator at Annexure 1 and subsequent promotion as Principal, DIET, Khallikote at Annexure-2”. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that basing on the advertisement issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No.12 of 2015-16 under Annexure-9, private Opposite Party No.3 made his application as against the post of Senior Teacher Educator, Group-B for DIET under the School & Mass Education Department. After participating in the selection process, Opposite Party No.3 vide notification dtd.11.04.2018 under Annexure-1 was appointed as against the post of Senior Teacher Educator and he was placed to DIET, Puri. 4.1. It is contended that subsequently vide notification dtd.19.02.2024, Opposite Party No.3 was promoted to the post of Principal / Asst. Director and he was posted as such to DIET, Ganjam at Khallikote. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Opposite Party No.3 prosecuted his +3 Arts at B.J.B, Autonomous College, Bhubaneswar during the Sessions 1999-2002 and for that purpose he utilized the C.L.C issued by Rajadhani, College, Bhubaneswar. He passed +3 Arts in the year 2002. But simultaneously Opposite Party No.3 prosecuted C.T. course during the Sessions 1999-2001 at DIET, Khurda under the Board of Page 2 of 13 // 3 // Secondary Education, Odisha by utilizing a duplicate T.C so obtained from Rajadhani, College, Bhubaneswar and he passed the C.T. in the year 2001. 4.3. It is contended that since private Opposite Party No.3 prosecuted two different courses during the same academic sessions and because of such acquisition of qualification, he got the benefit of participating in the selection process pursuant to advertisement issued by the Commission on 22.08.2015 under Annexure-9 and got selected and appointed vide notification dtd.11.04.2018 under Annexure-1, the said selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.3 is not sustainable in the eye of law and so also the order of promotion extended in his favour vide notification dtd.19.02.2020. 4.4. It is also contended that similar allegation made against Opposite Party No.3 by one Akhaya Kumar Mohanty before the Vigilance Authority though has been forwarded to the Director TE & SCERT, Odisha vide Annexure-10, but no action is being taken on such complaint. 4.5. It is accordingly contended that since private Opposite Party No.3 acquired two different qualifications during the same academic session, the acquisition of qualification of CT basing on which Opposite Party No.3 Page 3 of 13 // 4 // got the benefit of appointment and consequential promotion vide notification issued under Annexures 1 & 2 are illegal and Opposite Party No.3 should be thrown out of service. 4.6. This Court while hearing the matter when raised a question with regard to the locus-standi of the Petitioner to file the present writ petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the writ petition being in the nature of writ of co-warranto, Petitioner is competent to move this application. In support of the same, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision in the case of Professor Syed Haider Hassan Kazimi & Others vs. State of
Legal Reasoning
West Bengal & Another of the High Court of Calcutta so passed in WPA 18735 of 2022. High Court of Calcutta in Paragraph-33 of the said judgment has held as follows:- “33.This view arises from the sub-text of Article 226(1) which contemplates an infringement, deprivation or violation of a fundamental right or enforcement of such right or for any other purpose. The Supreme Court however thought it fit to make an exception in the case of Quo Warranto since the person may come to the Court as a relater and an informant. Professor H.W.R Wade noted that Certiorari is not confined by a narrow concept of locus standi since it contains an element of the actio popularis; looks beyond the personal rights of the applicant and is designed to keep the machinery of justice in proper working order by preventing inferior tribunals and public authorities from abusing their Page 4 of 13 // 5 // powers. [Referred to in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar; (1975) 2 SCC 702]”. 4.7.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that since Opp. Party No.3 has got the benefit of appointment by fraudulent means, vide notification dtd.11.04.2018 under Annexure-1 and promotion to the next higher rank vide notification dtd.19.02.2024 under Annexure-2 he is not eligible to continue with such benefits any further. Petitioner on coming across such illegalities committed by Opp. Party No.3 as found from the documents available under Annexure-3, 4 & 8 is before this Court with the prayer as made. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
Decision
contended that if as contended by the Writ Petitioner, Opp. Party No.3 has got the benefit of appointment and consequential order of promotion by adopting fraudulent means, this Court basing on the available materials may pass appropriate order as deem fit and proper. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this court finds that the present Writ Petition has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner Kailash Chandra Mohanty inter alia challenging the selection and appointment of Opp. Party No.3 as Senior Teacher Educator in DIET Cadre (Group-B) so issued by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide notification dated 11.04.2018 under Annexure-1 and subsequent promotion Page 5 of 13 // 6 // of Opp. Party No.3 as Principal, DIET, Khallikote vide notification dt.19.02.2024 so issued by the Government- Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-2. As found from the record, Opp. Party No.3 passed the 3 year Degree course in the Bachelor of Arts examination held in the month of April, 2002 from B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar during the Academic Session 1999-2002. As further found, Petitioner passed the C.T Examination so conducted by the Board of Secondary Education in the examination held in July, 2001 from DIET, Khurda during the academic session 1999- 2001. 6.1. It is the main allegation of the Petitioner that Opp. Party No.3 while prosecuting his +3 (Arts) course in B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar during the Academic Session, 1999- 2002, he could not have prosecuted C.T course in DIET, Khurda during Academic Session 1999-2001. Opp. Party No.3 took admission in B.J.B. College to prosecute +3 (Arts) during the Academic Session 1999- 2002 by utilizing the C.L.C issued from Rajdhani College, Bhubaneswar after completion of his +2 (Arts) in the year 1998. But in order to take admission in the C.T course during the Academic Session 1999-2001, he made an application before the College to get a duplicate C.L.C by making an affidavit on 31.12.1999 to the effect that he has lost his original certificate and that certificate has not been utilized before any authority for service or higher study Page 6 of 13 // 7 // purpose. The said information was provided under RTI by the authorities of Board of Secondary Education vide letter dt.30.10.2023 under Annexure-3 series. It is found that the said R.T.I information has been obtained by one Akhaya Ku. Mohanty. 6.2. As further found from the record, Opp. Party No.3 taking into account his qualification, initially was engaged as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak vide order of engagement issued on 31.12.2004. While getting such benefit of engagement as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak, Opp. Party No.3 disclosed his qualification as Matric C.T as found from Annexure-8. 6.3. Basing on the advertisement issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No.12 of 2015-16 under Annexure-9, Opp. Party No.3 participated in the selection process for the post of Senior Teacher Educator (Group-B) for District Institute of Educational Training. Pursuant to the said advertisement issued in the year 2015-16, Opp. Party No.3 on the recommendation of the Commission was appointed vide notification dt.11.04.2018 under Anneuxre-1. As further found, while so continuing and on being found eligible, Opp. Party No.3 got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Principal in Level-XII vide notification dt.19.02.2024 under Annexure-2. Page 7 of 13 // 8 // 6.4. It is found that all the information with regard to acquisition of the qualification of +3 (Arts) and C.T by Opp. Party No.3 during the Academic Session 1999-2002 and 1999-2001 have been obtained by one Akhaya Ku. Mohanty vide Annexure-3 and Annexure-8 series. Similarly, as found from Annexure-10 complaint made by Akhaya Kumar Mohanty has been forwarded by the Vigilance Deptt. to the Director, T & SCERT Odisha, Bhubaneswar. But by utilizing those information obtained by Sri Akhya Ku. Mohanty, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner Kailash Ch. Mohanty. Therefore, it is the view of this that the Writ Petition in question should have been field by the person who obtained all the information under Annexres-3 & 8 as well as Annexure-10. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that the Petitioner has got no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 6.5. Not only that, even though in such type of cases, a Writ of quo-warranto can be issued by this Court, but, it is the view of this Court that Opp. Party No.3 acquired the qualification of +3 (Arts) during the Academic Session 1999-2002 and the C.T course during the Academic Session 1999-2001. No document has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia showing that there is a bar on the part of a candidate to prosecute +3 (Arts) and C.T course during the same Academic Session simultaneously. Page 8 of 13 // 9 // It is also found that Opp. Party No.3 taking into account his qualification so obtained was engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak in the year 2004. Thereafter, basing on the advertisement issued by the Commission during the year 2015-16, Opp. Party No.3 was selected and appointed as Senior Teacher Educator vide notification dt.11.04.2018 under Annexure-1 and he got the benefit of promotion to the rank of Principal vide notification dt.19.02.2024 under Annexure-2. 6.6. Since no documents has been filed by the Writ Petitioner inter alia showing that there was any bar on the part of Opp. Party No.3 to prosecute both the courses during the Academic Session 1999-2002 and 1999-2001, as per considered view of this Court, no illegality and irregularity has been committed by Opp. Party No.3 in acquiring both the qualifications. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that Opp. Party No.3 got the benefit of appointment initially as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak in the year 2004 and as Sr. Teacher Educator in the year 2018 by adopting any fraudulent means. Opp. Party No.3 passed +3 (Arts) examination held in April, 2002 with 1st Class (Hons.) and C.T course in the examination held in the year 2001 also in First Division. 6.7. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that since there is no violation of any statutory provision and rules nor Opp. Party No.3 has got the benefit of appointment by any Page 9 of 13 // 10 // unfair means, this Court in view of the decision rendered in the case of Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal, 2013 (1) SCC 501 and State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das and Others, 2022 (16) SCC 318 is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition even though the Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of quo- warranto. Hon’ble Apex Court in para 32 and 33 of the judgment in the case of Rajesh Awasthi has held as follows: 32. In High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [(2003) 4 SCC 712 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 565] it has been laid down by this Court that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when there is violation of statutory provisions/rules. The said principle has been reiterated in Retd. Armed Forces Medical Assn. v. Union of India