The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 31903 of 2024 Munmun Satpathy & Ors. ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Petitioners Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 7) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 29.01.2025 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.27.01.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by the D.E.O. vide letter dtd.27.01.2025 in Court. The same be kept in record. Basing on the instruction learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that one Minakshi Nandy is continuing as Headmistress-in-charge of the School. 3. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 5. 4. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the communication dtd.05.12.2024 so issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-10. Vide the impugned communication Opp. Party No. 3 by treating Opp. Party No. 5 as Headmistress-in- Page 1 of 4. charge of the School, has permitted her to submit the proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee. 5. It is contended that vide Annexure-9 notification dtd.28.11.2024 the self-same Opp. Party No. 3 taking into account the earlier order passed on 07.10.2024 under Annexure-7 requested the Headmistress-in-charge of the School namely one Minakshi Nandy to submit the proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the School in question. But on the face of Annexure-7 & Annexure-9 notification, Opp. Party No. 3 has wrongly allowed Opp. Party No. 5 by describing her as Headmistress-in-Charge of the School to take step for reconstitution of the Managing Committee. Petitioners being aggrieved by such action of Opp. Party No. 3 approached this Court in the present writ petition. 5.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that in the meantime vide another letter issued by the self-same Opp. Party No. 3 on 31.12.2024 (copy of which is produced in Court today), the earlier order issued on 07.10.2024 under Annexure-7 has been revived till disposal of the present writ petition. 6. Considering the instruction provided by the D.E.O. and revival of order at Annexure-7, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that in view of such subsequent development which has taken place, appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party o. 3 to take step for reconstitution of the Managing Committee by permitting Smt. Meenakshi Nandy to submit the proposal. 6.1. It is also contended that taking into account the conduct of Opp. Party No. 5, this Court on the application made by the State in W.P.(C) No. 7918 of 2018 and vide order dtd.07.11.2024 under Page 2 of 4. Annexure-8 modified the earlier order passed on 08.08.2024 and with a direction on Opp. Party No. 3 to call upon the incumbent Headmistress-in-charge of the School to submit a fresh proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee and the Headmistress-in- Charge submitted the same in accordance with law. 6.2. It is contended that the earlier writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 7918 of 2018 was filed by the present Opp. Party No. 5 and vide judgment dtd.08.08.2024 under Annexure-5, when she was permitted to submit the proposal for such reconstitution of the Managing Committee, State filed I.A. No. 11983 of 2024 for modification of the Judgment dtd.08.08.2024. This Court vide order dtd.07.11.2024 under Annexure-8, allowed the modification prayed for by the State and directed Opp. Party No. 3 to call upon the incumbent Headmistress-in-charge to submit the proposal. Modified order passed on 07.11.2024 reads as follows:- “The District Education Officer, Mayurbhanj (opposite party No.3) shall call upon the incumbent Headmistress-in-charge of the institution to submit a fresh proposal for reconstitution of the Managing Committee and the Headmistress shall submit the same in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a month for onward transmission to the office of the Director, who shall pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law, within two months thereafter.” the DEO. Mayurbhanj to 6.3. It is contended that in terms of such modified order passed on 07.11.2024, Annexure-9 was issued by permitting the incumbent Headmistress-in-charge namely Minakshi Nandy to submit the proposal. But on the face of such order passed by this Court on 07.11.2024 and the notification issued on 28.11.2024 under Annexure-9, the impugned communication was issued on 05.12.2024 permitting Opp. Party No. 5/Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. Page 3 of 4. 7918 of 2018 to submit the proposal. It is contended that in view of the nature of order passed on 07.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 7918 of 2018 under Annexure-8, Opp. Party No. 5 is not competent to submit the proposal. It is accordingly contended that the impugned communication dt.05.12.2024, so issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 5 on the other hand contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 is continuing as Headmistress-in-charge of the School, she is competent to submit the proposal and no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned communication issued on 05.12.2024 under Annexure-10. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made and taking into account the order passed by this Court on 07.11.2024 under Annexure-8, this Court is of the view that Opp. Party No. 5 is not competent to submit the proposal. 8.1. In view of the nature of order available under Annexure-8, this Court is of the view that Opp. Party No. 5 cannot be allowed to submit the proposal as Headmistress-in-Charge of the School. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the communication dtd.05.12.2024 so issued by Opp. party No. 3 under Annexure-10 and quash the same accordingly. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Sneha Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:07:23 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 4 of 4.