The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 38304 of 2020 Sudhir Sekhar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. S.K.Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 4) JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 26.09.2023 Order No 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 4. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.12.12.2018 so passed by the Opp. Party No. 2 under
Decision
Annexure-11 to the writ petition. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was appointed as Headmaster vide order issued by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Maa Maheswari High School on 25.06.1992 under Annexure-1. It is contended that subsequent to his appointment as against the post of Headmaster vide order under Annexure-1, // 2 // Petitioner was not only allowed to continue as Headmaster of the School but also in the renewal recognition form submitted by the Managing Committee before the Board of Secondary Education under Annexure-2 series, the name of the Petitioner was indicated as against the post of Headmaster. 4.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner continued in the school as the Headmaster in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1, but when the school became eligible to receive block grant in terms of GIA order, 2009 and the services of the Petitioner was not approved by the Inspector of Schools while approving the services of other teaching and non-teaching staff of the School vide order dtd.10.03.2010 and Petitioner thereafter was not allowed to discharge his duty, Petitioner challenging such action of the Managing Committee approached the State Education Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 34 of 2010. The Tribunal vide order dtd.10.02.2012 while disposing Appeal Case No. 34 of 2010 remitted the same to Opp. Party No. 2 to cause an enquiry on the claim of the Petitioner and to dispose of the claim in accordance with law after giving him a chance of personal hearing. 4.2. It is contended that on being remitted Opp. Party No. 2 took up the matter and conducted the hearing on different dates. It is contended that even though the final hearing of the matter was concluded on 27.01.2018 and it was shown as a disposed of matter on 27.01.2018, but the order was passed on 10.12.2018 with communication vide Memo No. 39454 dtd.12.12.2018. But order passed by the Opp. Party No. 2 on 10.12.2018 was never communicated vide Memo dtd.12.12.2018 and Petitioner accordingly could not challenge the same immediately. Petitioner when came to know that his appeal has been rejected by the Opp. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Party No. 2 vide his order dtd.10.12.2018 so communicated on 12.12.2018, he approached the said authority and was provided with a copy of the said order on 18.11.2020. Petitioner accordingly challenging the said order is before this Court in the present writ petition. 4.3. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since Petitioner was duly appointed by the Managing Committee of the School vide order under Anenxure-1 and his name was reflected in the renewal recognition form submitted by the School under Annexure-2 series and his name was also reflected in the order of approval issued by the Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-3. But the Managing Committee intentionally and deliberately did not recommend his name for his approval as against the post of Headmaster when the School became eligible to receive block grant as per GIA order, 2009. Because of such illegal action taken by the Managing Committee in not recommending his name, Opp. Party No. 3 while approving the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School vide his order dtd.10.03.2010, the name of the Petitioner was excluded from such order of approval. As the services of the Petitioner was not approved by the Opp. Party No. 3 while approving the services of other teaching and non-teaching staff vide order dtd.10.03.2010, Petitioner subsequent to such order when was not allowed to discharge his duty in the school which amounts to termination in the eye of law, filed an appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 34 of 2010. 4.4. The Tribunal vide its Judgment dtd.10.02.2012 remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the claim Page 3 of 6 // 4 // as raised by the Petitioner in his appeal, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.10.12.2018 communicated vide Memo dtd.12.12.2018 under Annexure-11. 4.5. It is contended that since the Petitioner was duly appointed and was allowed to continue as Headmaster of the School, the non- approval of his services and consequential action of the Managing Committee in not allowing him to discharge his duty w.e.f. the date of approval is prima facie illegal and the said fact was not taken into consideration by the Opp. Party No. 2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 4 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that even though Petitioner was appointed vide order under Annexure-1, but while continuing in the said capacity, Petitioner joined as a Sikshya Sahayak and continued for the period from 02.01.2005 to 31.03.2006. Because of such action of the Petitioner in joining as a Sikshya Sahayak while continuing as Headmaster of the School, his name was not recommended, while recommending the name of other teaching and non-teaching staff for their approval to receive the benefit of grant-in-aid under GIA order, 2010. 5.1. It is also contended that the order of approval passed by the Opp. Party No. 3 approving the services of teaching and non- teaching staff of the school though was assailed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 34 of 2010, but the Tribunal remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner, Opp. Party No. 2 after hearing all the Parties to the dispute and after going through the materials placed Page 4 of 6 // 5 // by the respective Parties, rejected the claim taking into account the conduct of the Petitioner with regard to his continuance as a Sikshya Sahayak for the period from 03.01.2005 to 30.06.2006 during his continuance as Headmaster. Accordingly, Opp. Party No. 2 was not inclined to interfere with the prayer as made by the Petitioner for approval of his services and to allow him to continue in the school. 6. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, contended that since Petitioner during his continuance as Headmaster of the School joined as a Sikhya Sahayak for the period from 03.01.2005 to 31.03.2006, his name was not recommended by the Managing Committee while recommending the names of other teaching and non-teaching staff for their approval and to get the benefit of grant- in-aid. It is also contended that Petitioner since 2010 is not in service and in the meantime he was also attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, no order of reinstatement can be passed with due approval of his services. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Petitioner though was appointed as against the post of Headmaster by the Managing Committee of the School vide order dtd.25.06.1992 under Annexure-1 and his name was reflected in the renewal recognition form submitted by the School under Annexure- 2 series as well as in the order of approval issued by the Opp. Party No. 2 on 07.04.2006 under Annexure-3, but Petitioner while continuing as Headmaster of the School, joined as a Sikshya Sahayak for the period from 03.01.2005 to 31.03.2006. Even though a stand has been taken by the Petitioner that he joined as a Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Sikshya Sahayak with due permission of the Managing Committee, but no such permission issued by the Managing Committee was ever produced by the Petitioner. Since Petitioner during his continuance as Headmaster of the School, continued as a Sikshya Sahayak simultaneously and accordingly his name was not recommended by the Managing Committee for his approval, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with such action of the Managing Committee in not recommending his name. 7.1. It is also found that the services of the Petitioner was never approved and the order of approval passed by the Opp. Party No. 3 on 10.03.2010 attained finality in view of the order passed by the Opp. Party No. 2. Since Petitioner is not in service w.e.f. the year 2010 and in the meantime he has attained the age of superannuation, no fruitful order can be passed even if the impugned order is held illegal by this Court. In view of such position and taking into account the fact that the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during pendency of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the same. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Sep-2023 16:02:53 Page 6 of 6