Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Madan Mohan Kar And Others on 15 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003
State of Odisha and Others .... Petitioners
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel
School & Mass Education Department
-versus-
Madan Mohan Kar and others .... Opposite Parties
None
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 15.03.2022
09. 1. The present writ petition challenges an order dated 21st August,
1999 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar in Appeal No.2 of 1999 filed by the Opposite Party
No.1. In the said appeal filed under Section 10A of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969 (OE Act), Opposite Party No.1 had
challenged an order dated 18th November, 1998 terminating the
services of Opposite Party No.1 from the post of Head Pandit of
Prabhakar Sanskrit Bidyalaya in Jajpur District.
2. The school in question is an aided educational institution within
the meaning of Section 3(b) of OE Act. Initially, Opposite Party
No.2 was the Head Pandit of the School. Challenging the
termination of his services Opposite Party No.2 had filed Appeal
No.18 of 1996 which was allowed by the Education Tribunal by an
order dated 27th March 1997 directing his reinstatement with all
service benefits. When the order of the Tribunal was not
implemented, Opposite Party No.2 filed OJC No.6641 of 1997 in
this Court seeking compliance of the said order. On the other hand,
the Managing Committee of the school filed OJC No.9883 of 1997
in this Court seeking the quashing of the order of the Education
Tribunal.
3. On 9th September, 1998 OJC No.6641 of 1997 filed by Opposite
Party No.2 was allowed and a direction was issued to the present
Petitioners i.e. the Department of School and Mass Education to
implement the judgment dated 27th March, 1997 of the Tribunal.
4. In compliance with the order dated 9th September, 1998 passed
by this Court, Opposite Party No.2 was allowed to resume duties
in School as Head Pandit .
5. Since there was only one post of Head Pandit, there was a
situation where both Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2
could not have continued as such. Consequently, the order dated
19th November, 1998 terminating the services of Opposite Party
No.1 had to be passed by the Managing Committee of the School.
6. The ground on which Appeal No.2 of 1999 filed by Opposite
Party No.1 has been allowed by the Education Tribunal by the
impugned order is that Opposite Party No.1 was not a party to the
proceeding initiated by the Opposite Party No.2. Having been duly
selected the services could not have been terminated without prior
approval of the authority under Section 10-A(1) of the OE Act. In
the circumstances, the appeal was allowed and the order of
termination of Opposite Party No.1 was set aside.
7. There was one interesting development that took place even
while the present writ petition was pending. Opposite Party No.1
appears to have filed OJC No.1310 of 2000 seeking
implementation of the order dated 21st August, 1999 of the
Education Tribunal. The said writ petition was disposed of by this
Court by an order dated 24th March, 2008 directing the school to
comply with the directions of the Education Tribunal within a
period of three months. Against non-compliance of the said order,
Opposite Party No.1 filed contempt petition i.e. CONTC No.991
of 2009 which was disposed of on 5th February, 2010 granting four
months' time to comply with the order.
8. In the meanwhile, the present petition came up for hearing
before a Division Bench of this Court which on 18 th March, 2011
passed an interim order staying the order dated 21 st August, 1999
of the Education Tribunal. As a result, there have been two
conflicting orders: one passed by a Division Bench of this Court
on 24th March, 2008 directing the S & M E Department to
implement the order dated 21st August, 1999 and another the
interim order dated 18th March, 2011 staying the operation of the
order dated 21st August, 1999 of the Education Tribunal. Clearly,
in view of such conflicting orders the S & ME Department could
not be expected to implement the earlier order dated 24th March,
2008.
9. Today, despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of
Opposite Party No.1. In fact earlier a lawyer had entered
appearance and had filed a reply to the present petition for
Opposite Party No.1. In any event, he has not been able to get back
in service despite the above orders in view of the developments
explained hereinbefore. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
informed the Court that as of date Opposite Party No.2 is
continuing as Head Pandit pursuant to the above orders.
10. In view of the above status quo having continued for well over
a decade and with their being full justification for the S and ME
Department not to have implemented the order dated 24 th March,
2008 in OJC No.1310 of 2000, the Court considers it appropriate
to set aside the order dated 21st August, 1999 of the Education
Tribunal.
11. In view of the earlier proceedings in this Court and the orders
passed by this Court in OJC No.6641 of 1997 wherein by order
dated 9th September, 1998 this Court had asked the judgment dated
27th March, 1997 of the Education Tribunal in favour of Opposite
Party No.2 to be implemented, the Education Tribunal could not
have, ignoring the above facts, insisted upon Opposite Party No.1
being accommodated by the order dated 21st August, 1999.
12. Since the order dated 21st August, 1999 of the Education
Tribunal is hereby set aside, the order passed by this Court on 24 th
March, 2008 in OJC No.1310 of 2000 asking for its
implementation is incapable of being implemented and is rendered
inoperative.
13. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms, but in the
circumstances, with no order as to costs.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
S.K. Jena/P.A.
