Orissa High Court
Lakshmi Narayan Mahto vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 22 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
O.J.C. No.1804 of 1997
Lakshmi Narayan Mahto .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. S.K. Mund,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. R.C. Pattanaik,
Standing Counsel for the S. & M.E. Deptt.
Mr. S.K. Mishra,
Advocate for the O.Ps.4 & 5
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
Order No. 22.12.2021
01. 1. This writ petition involves the following prayer:-
" Prayer
Under the above circumstances, it is, humbly
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the
opposite parties to show cause as to why the order of
dismissal of the petitioner in service shall not be
quashed and direction shall not be issued for
reinstatement of service of the Petitioner, and the
period of dismissal of service shall not be treated as
duty for all purposes and consequential benefits as
admissible under law, the petitioner shall not be
deemed to be continuing in the service continuously
from the date of his initial appointment.
And in the event the opposite parties fail to
show cause or show insufficient cause make the rule
absolute, issue a writ of mandamus directing the
opposite parties to quash the order of dismissal of the
// 2 //
petitioner and direction be issued for reinstatement of
service of the petitioner and the period of dismissal be
treated as duty for all purposes and consequential
financial benefit as admissible under law.
And pass any such order / orders, direction /
directions and issue such other writ / writs as may be
deemed fit and proper."
2. There is no dispute to the fact that by the order vide
Annexure-1 the Petitioner was terminated from service on the
premises of his conviction in criminal case. There is also no dispute
that even though the Petitioner was convicted by the trial Court, in
disposal of the appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1985 by the
judgment of the High Court dated 28.01.1993, the Petitioner has
been acquitted from the charges. Basing on this acquittal the
Petitioner started approaching the competent authority for his
reinstatement in service. It is, on the basis of the above, claim is
made for a direction to the competent authority for reinstatement of
the Petitioner in service with back wages.
3. In filing response the Opposite Party No.3 through paragraph
nos.2 & 3 therein contended that for some time the School in
question was a recognized Educational Institution, but however
w.e.f.1.06.1995, the School in question became a private School for
not receiving the Grant-in-Aid any further. The Opposite Party
Nos.4 & 5 i.e. the School Authorities also filing counter affidavit in
clear term denied the ownership of the School, except admitting
therein that there is some sort of financial grant in shape of aid for
running of the Institution, which even got stopped since May, 1995.
It is, in this view of the matter, entertainability of the writ petition as
against this Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 is also opposed.
// 3 //
4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties this Court
finds, there remains no dispute that the School involved herein
became private Institution from 1995. The Writ Petition is filed in
the year 1997 absolutely against the private bodies. In such view of
the matter, this Court refrained from entertaining the writ petition
against the private bodies like the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5.
5. Petitioner's counsel cites discussion of the Hon'ble apex
Court, which is applicable, provided the writ petition is entertained
and for the finding of this Court that the writ petition is against
absolutely a private body, the discussion cited at Bar has no
application to the case at hand.
6. In the circumstance, this Court finds, the writ petition is not
maintainable, which is, hereby, dismissed.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
A.K. Jena
