Orissa High Court
Smt. Surekha Sundari Dei vs State Of Odisha And Others on 5 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 3376 of 2015
Smt. Surekha Sundari Dei ..... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. K.K. Swain
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite parties
Mr. S. Jena,
Standing Counsel S&ME
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
05.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the District
Education Officer, Khurda under Annexure-15 and further
seeks direction to the opposite parties to reinstate her in
service along with all consequential service and financial
benefits.
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Hindi
Teacher by following due process of selection on 12.02.1989
in Dalatota M.E. school, pursuant to which, she joined in the
said post on 26.02.1989 and continued to discharge her
duties. While she was continuing in the school in question,
the said school was taken over by the State Government by
virtue of the resolution dated 01.04.1991. Subsequently, the
State Government issued another circular dated 29.09.1985,
wherein direction has been issued to the Director,
Elementary, Education, Orissa to adjust the Hindi Teacher in
taken over M.E. Schools either in the vacant post of Asst.
Teacher or in the post of third teacher to be created in such
schools or in other schools in relaxation of the qualification
prescribed for the third teachers. Further, the teachers, who
do not C.T. qualification, should be allowed three years of
time and covered under contract-cum-correspondence
course. Since Hindi became a non-examinable subject in M.E.
Schools, the State Government issued a circular on
01.05.1992 to adjust Hindi teachers as Asst. Teachers either
in same school or in any other school. Pursuant to such
circular, though the case of the petitioner was not considered,
she approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2173 (c) of
1993 for her adjustment as Asst. Teacher pursuant to the
circular dated 01.05.1992. The said original application was
disposed of by the tribunal vide order dated 11.11.1993
directing the authority to consider the representation of the
petitioner keeping in view the government order at
Annexure-4 therein. Subsequently, another order has been
issued by the Government on 17.06.1996, wherein it has
been found that after enquiry 137 numbers of Hindi teachers
were continuing in different M.E. schools and therefore
decision was taken to ascertain about their genuineness
before adjusting them as Asst. Teachers. After series of
correspondences, the Government vide letter dated
07.07.2009 directed the Director, Elementary Education,
Orissa to adjust the Hindi Teachers as Asst. Teachers against
vacant post after proper verification of their original records.
Accordingly, the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha vide
order dated 23.07.2009 adjusted 137 numbers of Hindi
Teachers in different U.P.(M.E.) Schools against the post of
Asst. Teachers. Since the case of the petitioner has not been
considered, she filed the present original application, which
has been renumbered as WPC (OAC) 3376 of 2015, stating
inter alia that though she stood in the same footing with that
of 137 numbers of Hindi teachers, who were adjusted against
the post of Asst. Teachers, she could not have been denied
the benefit of adjustment.
It is further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that similar matter, i.e., O.A. No.3420 (c) of 2015
and batch (Mohan Charan Nayak v. State of Orissa) have
been filed before the tribunal and vide order dated
30.01.2018, the tribunal, holding that unless it is established
or shown that their appointment is illegal, quashed the order
of removal and directed the authority to allow the applicants
therein to continue in service along with all consequential
service and financial benefits. The said order of the tribunal
was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.6557 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 20.12.2018
confirmed the order passed by the tribunal by dismissing the
writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner having stood
in the same footing, she should have been extended with the
benefits at par with the petitioners in O.A. No.3420 (c) of
2015 and batch (Mohan Charan Nayak v. State of Orissa),
which has been made confirmed by this Court.
Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School and
Mass Education Department argued with vehemence and
contended that the petitioner is not entitled the benefits as
claimed in the writ petition and, as such, admittedly the
petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher and was not
adjusted in any post pursuant to the circular issued by the
government. Therefore, the benefit as claimed by her cannot
be granted and consequentially it is stated that the action
taken by the authority is well justified.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel
for the parties and after going through the records, since this
question is no more res integra in view of the judgment
passed by the tribunal in Mohan Charan Nayak mentioned
supra, which has been made confirmed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.6557 of 2018, the petitioner having stood in the
same footing, the relief sought cannot be denied by the
authority. In such view of the matter, the order dated
28.08.2015 passed by the District Education Officer, Khurda
under Annexure-15 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the
same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The
opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service in terms of judgment passed by the tribunal in
Mohan Charan Nayak mentioned supra, which has been
made confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6557 of 2018
and grant all consequential financial and service benefit to her
within a period of four months from the date of passing of
this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order.
Ashok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
