The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36174 of 2022 Hrusikesh Mishra …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. T. Nanda, Advocate State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC Mr.S. Sahoo, Adv. for O.P.6 Mr. D.R. Sundaray, Adv. for O.P.8 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.11.2024 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.10.03.2015 passed by the Joint Director, Regional Directorate of Education, Sambalpur- Opposite Party No.3 in Appeal No.24/2008 under Annexure-1. Challenge made to the order of termination has been found to be just and proper by the Regional Director while rejecting the appeal. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher temporarily on consolidated // 2 // monthly salary vide order of appointment issued on 16.03.1999 under Annexure-2.
Legal Reasoning
4.1. It is contended that in the renewal recognition form submitted by the School, name of the Petitioner was indicated as against the post of Hindi Teacher till the year 2004. But all and sudden without any prior notice, Petitioner was terminated from his services by the Managing Committee vide Resolution passed on 11.07.2005. But prior to taking such a decision to terminate the Petitioner, no notices were sent to him nor any such notices were received by the Petitioner. 4.2. It is contended that challenging the order of termination, Petitioner approached the Regional Director- Opposite Party No.3 by filing Appeal No.24/2008. But the Regional Director without proper appreciation of the grounds of appeal rejected the appeal vide order dtd.10.03.2015 under Annexure-1. 4.3. It is contended that the order passed by the Regional Director under Annexure-1 on 10.03.2015 initially was assailed by the Petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.12115 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed as withdrawn with liberty to file it afresh vide order dtd.06.05.2022 under Annexure-4. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dtd.10.03.2015. Page 2 of 7 // 3 // 4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since prior to such termination of the Petitioner, no notice was ever served on him by the Managing Committee of the School, the order of termination passed against him on 11.07.2005 was required to be interfered with by the Regional Director in the appeal in question. But without proper appreciation of the claim since the appeal has been rejected vide the impugned order, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. D.R. Sundaray, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.8 on the other hand contended that even though Petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher vide order dtd.16.03.1999 under Annexure-2, but since he remained unauthorizedly absence w.e.f. 01.12.2004, notices were served on him by the School through the Peon on different occasion. As the Petitioner refused to accept such notices, the Managing Committee in its Resolution dtd. 11.07.2005 resolved to terminate the Petitioner from his services. 5.1. After terminating the Petitioner from his services, the Managing Committee issued an advertisement to fill up the post on 18.11.2008 and pursuant to the said selection process, Opposite Party No.8 was duly selected and appointed vide order dtd.25.01.2009 under Annexure-1/L to the counter affidavit. Pursuant to the Page 3 of 7 // 4 // said order Petitioner joined in his services on 27.01.2009 and continuing as such in that capacity. 5.2. It is also contended that even though Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.16.03.1999 under Annexure-2, but the said appointment was never approved by the Managing Committee of the School as Petitioner’s appointment was on temporary basis with consolidated salary. 5.3. It is also contended that the Petitioner at no point of time challenged the action of the Managing Committee to fill up the post with issuance of the advertisement on 18.11.2008 during pendency of the appeal and consequential appointment of Opposite Party No.8 vide order dtd.25.01.2009. 5.4. It is also contended that since Petitioner remained absent willfully from the School for a pretty long period, the Managing Committee after following due procedure of law not only terminated him from his services, but also by following due procedure of law appointed Opposite Party No.8 as against the said post in which he is continuing since 27.01.2009. It is also contended that services of the private Opposite Party No.8 has been approved in the meantime. 6. Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.6 on the other hand made his Page 4 of 7 // 5 // submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.6. 6.1. It is contended that due to unauthorized absence of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2004 the Managing Committee after following due procedure of law in its proceeding dtd.12.07.2005 under Annexure-D/5 resolved to terminate the Petitioner from his services. 6.2. It is also contended that the appointment of the Petitioner so made vide order dtd.16.03.1999 was never approved by the Managing Committee. 6.3. It is further contended that subsequent to termination of the Petitioner, an advertisement was issued by the Managing Committee on 18.11.2008 and pursuant to that private Opposite party No.8 was selected and appointed vided order dtd.25.01.2009. 6.4. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner has been terminated since 11.07.2005 and in his place Opposite Party No.8 after being appointed is continuing with due approval of his services, claim of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Regional Director which requires no interference. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher by the Managing Committee of the School-Opposite Party Page 5 of 7 // 6 // No.6 vide office order dtd.16.03.1999 under Annexure-2. Challenging the order of termination issued in his favour on 11.07.2005, Petitioner approached the Regional Director-Opposite Party No.3 by filing Appeal No.24/2008. 7.1. It is found that during pendency of the appeal, when steps were taken by the Managing Committee to fill up the post with issuance of an advertisement on 18.11.2008, Petitioner at no point of time challenged such action of the Managing Committee to fill up the post. Pursuant to such advertisement, Opposite Party No.8 was duly selected and appointed vide order dtd.25.01.2009 under Annexure-1/L, where he joined on 27.01.2009. In the meantime services of the Opposite Party No.8 has also been approved as contended. 7.2. It is also found that the appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected on two grounds i.e. non-approval of his appointment so made by the Managing Committee on 16.03.1999 and willful absence of the Petitioner for the period from 01.12.2004 to 11.07.2005. No document has been filed by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition showing that the appointment of the Petitioner so made on 16.03.1999 has been approved by the Managing Committee nor any document has been filed showing that the Petitioner never remained unauthorized absence for the period in question. In the alternate notice issued by Page 6 of 7 // 7 // the Managing Committee to the Petitioner on his remaining on unauthorized absent was never accepted by the Petitioner. In absence of any such document being produced by the Petitioner, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with order dtd.10.03.2015 so passed by Opposite Party
Decision
No.3 under Annexure-1 and dismiss the Writ Petition. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 18:07:20 Page 7 of 7