Orissa High Court
Tapaswini Pattanayak vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 23 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4191 of 2022
Tapaswini Pattanayak .... Petitioner
Mr. Gyanaranjan Sethi, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, SC
(for S & ME Deptt./ O.P.1)
Ms. Suman Pattanayak, AGA
(for O.Ps.2 to 4)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 23.03.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard.
3. The present petitioner challenges action of the opposite party
Nos.3- Director, Higher Secondary Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar and 4-Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttck-cum- President,
Governing Body of Bahugram Higher Secondary School,
Bahugram, in the district of Cuttack for not recommending her
name for approval against the post of Lecturer in Odia, though
she has been continuing since 1993.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was appointed as a Lecturer in Odia in Bahugram Higher
Secondary School, Bahugram, in the district of Cuttack on
29.09.1993 and joined in service on 16.10.1993. He further
submits that the petitioner has been terminated from service on
07.08.2004 due to alleged unauthorized absence, though she had
intimated the authority regarding her maternity leave. She applied
for maternity leave from 12.03.2002 to 05.09.2002 and thereafter
availed E.L. from 06.09.2002 to 12.10.2002. After her delivery,
// 2 //
she went on leave from 02.12.2002 and extended the leave from
time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
termination of service of the petitioner was effected without
compliance of the mandate of Section 10-A of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969 which reads as follows:
"10-A. (1) The services of a teacher "[and other
members of the teachers of staff] of an aided educational
institution shall not be terminated without obtaining the
prior approval in writing of the--
(a) [Director], in the case of a teacher '[and other
members of the Staff] of a college; and
(b) Circle Inspector of Schools having jurisdiction,
in the case of teacher [and other members of the staff] of
a School.
(2) Every order passed by the Director or Circle
Inspector, as the case may be, either according approval
or refusing to accord approval under sub-section (1) shall
be communicated to the parties concerned within three
months of the reference.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed
under sub-section (1) may prefer an appeal to the
Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of the
order."
In the present case, such prior approval has not been obtained
from the Director. In view of such facts, the State Education
Tribunal was pleased to quash the termination order dated
07.08.2004 vide judgment dated 25.04.2018 passed in Appeal
Case No.19 of 2012.
5. In view of such facts, notice needs to be issued to the opposite
parties.
6. Hence, issue notice to the opposite parties.
7. Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the
Department of School and Mass Education waives of notice on
behalf of the opposite party No.1 and Ms. Suman Pattanayak,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State waives of
// 3 //
notice on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 to 4. Required number
of copies of the writ petition be served on each of them within
three working days hence, who shall obtain instructions in the
matter.
8. List this matter on 29th of April, 2022.
( S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
BJ
