Orissa High Court
Manorama Panigrahi vs State Of Odisha And Others on 5 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 8 of 2018
Manorama Panigrahi .... Appellant
Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Respondents
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel
for School and Mass Education Department
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 05.12.2022
02. 1. The challenge in the present writ appeal is to an order dated 6th
December, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the
Appellant's writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 10408 of 2007.
2. The background facts are that the Petitioner was initially appointed
as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak (SSS) and an engagement order
was issued in her favour on 10th February, 2004.
3. Subsequently, in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 this Court delivered a
judgment dated 29th April, 2004 quashing the entire selection of SSSs
in the entire State. A chance was granted to the selected candidates to
apply afresh and for giving additional marks to be given to them at
the time of their selection.
4. Thereafter, on 20th September, 2004 the Appellant again applied to
the Tahasildar, Udala for issuance of a residential certificate in her
favour. Pursuant thereto, on 23rd September 2004 the Tahasildar is
said to have issued such a certificate that the Appellant was a native
of district Mayurbhanj in the State of Odisha and that her family
ordinarily resided in village Mouda under Udala Tahasil.
5. On 13th June, 2005 the Appellant was married to a resident in
Balasore District. In October, 2006 a fresh advertisement was issued
for selection and appointment of SS in the State as per Block/Unit
wise. Pursuant thereto, on 27th October, 2006 the Appellant
submitted her application enclosing the necessary documents. In the
provisional list of selected candidates published on 1st December,
2006, the name of the Appellant was at Sl.No.3.
6. However, when the Appellant's residential certificate was sent for
verification a report was submitted that it was not genuine. It was
stated that after marriage the Appellant was no longer residing at the
original address given in the certificate. In the final list of selected
candidates of SS published on 7th April, 2007, the Appellant's name
did not figure.
7. When the Appellant appeared before the Tahasildar, the report was
called for from the Revenue Supervisor (RS), Kaptipada. Although, a
report was submitted by the RS that the Appellant was staying in a
rented house in Kaptipada, the Tahasildar, Udala on 20th April, 2007
issued an order holding that the residential status of the Appellant
was no more valid. At that stage the Appellant filed Writ Petition (C)
No.5777 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court on 9th May,
2007 permitting the Appellant to submit a representation before the
Collector, Mayurbhanj which was to be considered within two
months. The Collector rejected the Appellant's representation on 4th
July, 2017 on the ground that the Appellant was not a resident of
village Mouda after her marriage.
8. The Appellant again filed W.P.(C) No.10408 of 2007 in this Court
challenging the order of the Collector as well as the order dated 20th
April, 2007 passed by the Tahasidlar, Udala.
9. On 23rd August, 2007 a judgment was delivered by this Court in
Chandramani Jena v. State of Odisha 104 (2007) CLT 613 stating
for the post of SSS the requirement of a residential certificate
showing the candidate to be a resident of the particular area when the
appointment was going to be made, was not required. In other words,
as far as present Appellant is concerned, the fact that she no longer
was a permanent resident of village Mouda would not come in the
way of her being appointed as SSS.
10. An interim order was passed in the writ petition staying the order
of the Tahasildar and the Collector. As a result, the Appellant
continued as SSS throughout till the dismissal of her writ petition by
the learned Single Judge on 6th December, 2017. She appears to have
been actually relieved from service sometimes in January, 2018.
11. While it is true, as submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant
that as a result of judgment of this Court in Chandramani Jena
(supra) there was no disqualification for the Appellant to be selected
as SSS, the fact remains that the said post of SSS itself now stands
abolished. Learned counsel for the State informed the Court that this
was a scheme sponsored by the Central Government and
implemented by the State Government and the scheme itself has
come to an end. Those serving as SSS were subsequently absorbed as
regular teachers in the State Government. However, as far as the
Appellant is concerned, by virtue of the dismissal of the writ petition
by the learned Single Judge, she did not continue as SSS after
January, 2018.
12. The net effect is that today the Court is not in a position to issue
any mandamus to the Respondent-State to reinstate the Appellant as
SSS without which the question of considering her case for being
absorbed as a regular teacher does not arise.
13. Learned counsel for the Appellant urged that the Appellant was
out of service for no fault of hers and, therefore, this Court should in
exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution direct her
absorption in the State Government.
14. On account of subsequent events, it is not legally feasible for this
Court to issue the mandamus as prayed for by the Appellant. In other
words, when the post of SSS is no longer available, it is not possible
for this Court, while setting aside the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge, to direct the Appellant's reinstatement as SSS. Unless
that status of the Appellant is restored, the question of directing that
she should be regularly appointed as a teacher in the State
Government does not arise.
15. Consequently, while holding that the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge does not reflect the correct legal position as far
as the Appellant's engagement as SSS is concerned, the Court is not
in a position to grant any further relief to the Appellant by virtue of
the subsequent development. It will nevertheless be open to the
Appellant to seek other appropriate remedies in accordance with law
for compensating her for the loss suffered by her, as a result of the
illegal action of the State Government of disengaging her as SSS.
16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M.S.Raman)
Judge
S.K. Jena/Secy.
