Orissa High Court
Ranjita Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others on 29 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6267 of 2021
Ranjita Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Bose and Mr. D.N. Rath,
Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Mishra, SC
Mr. A.K. Bose, Advocate
(for opposite party No.3)
Mr. S.S. Pratap, Advocate
(for opposite party No.4)
CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 29.03.2022
8. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner was appointed against the post of Demonstrator in
Physics in Nilakantha Junior Mohavidyalaya, Bangara, Khannagar.
By way of this writ petition she challenges the order of termination
passed by the opposite Party vide order dated 29.12.2020 in Appeal
Case No. 07/2015 and the consequential order dated 22.01.2021,
passed by opposite party No.3, terminating the services of the
petitioner and reinstating opposite party No.4 against the post.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the judgment
and order dated 29.12.2020 passed by the State Education Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.07 of 2015 cannot sustain in the
eye of law in view of fact that the petitioner has not been impleaded
// 2 //
as party in the said appeal though the Tribunal has taken note of fact
that after opposite party no.4 was terminated from service, the
petitioner is continuing in the post of Demonstrator in Physics after
duly selected by following due procedure of selection on 05.05.2013
and is performing her duty. This fact has been placed in paragraph-4
of the judgment passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Case No.07 of
2015. Knowing fully well that the petitioner is continuing in service,
opposite party no.4 did not implead the petitioner as party in the
aforesaid appeal nor the petitioner was given opportunity to
participate in the hearing and the Tribunal quashed the order of
termination of opposite party no.4 vide order dated 29.12.2020 and
directed for her reinstatement. It is further contended that the
opposite party no.4 has not been terminated from services, which is
tell tale as evident from paragraph-2 of the judgment passed by the
Tribunal in Appeal Case No.07 of 2015, wherein it is specifically
stated that on 29.06.2015 when opposite party no.4 went to College
after summer vacation, the Principal cum-Secretary of the College
demanded rupees one lakh from her telling her that unless she paid
the amount, she would not be allowed to perform her duties. That
amounts to prevention of opposite party no.4 to discharge her duty.
Against termination of service, appeal under Section 10-A of the
Orissa Education Act, 1969 lies before the Director to quash the
order of termination, but here, as recorded in the judgment, it
amounts to prevention of discharging the duty, which may ultimately
amounts to termination of service. In paragraph-11 of the judgment,
the Tribunal has already held taking note of such fact stating that the
// 3 //
allegations made against the Principal of the College by opposite
party no.4 being serious one, she had to lodge either a complaint at
least to the Governing Body or to opposite parties no.1 and 2, though
might not to the police In absence of any concrete material being
placed by opposite party no.4, her allegation that the Principal
demanded rupees one lakh to allow her to join in duty cannot be
believed. It is further contended that reasons for termination of
opposite party no.4 to prevent her to discharge the duty, in that case
the Tribunal cannot quash the order of termination of opposite party
no.4. Immediately after the order was passed on 9.12.2020, the order
impugned has been issued without granting opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. It is further contended that in order to accommodate
opposite party no.4, the order Impugned has been passed.
5. The counsel for the opposite party No.04 contended that while the
opposite party No.4 was continuing as Demonstrator in Physics, on
dated 29.06.2015 she was prohibited by the Principal-cum-Secretary
of the college to perform her normal duty. Law is well settled by this
Hon'ble Court in the case of Dhaneswar Nayak Vrs. State of
Odisha,1, prohibition amounts termination. Being aggrieved by such
prohibition termination, the present opposite party No.4 filed an
appeal within 30 days before the State Education Tribunal U/s-10-A
of the Act with a prayer to quash or declare the
prevention/termination, passed in violation of mandatory provisions
of Section-10-A of the Odisha Education Act, 1969.That, in the said
OLR-1986-11-113
// 4 //
appeal the Governing Body (present Opp. Party No-3) appeared and
filed counter reply. In the said counter reply the Governing Body
annexed a document that the opposite party No.4 has not been
prohibited rather she has been terminated from her service w.e.f.
16.04.2013 (Annexure-F/4 to the counter filed by the opposite party
No.4). But it is a fact that, the said termination order dated
16.04.2013 has been passed without complying Section-10-A of the
Act, which is mandatory in nature. From the counter reply, for the
first time, the opposite party No.4 came to know that she was
terminated by the Governing Body on dated 16.04.2013. It is also a
fact that, the said termination order was not served on the opposite
party. That, the Governing Body also in his counter reply before the
Tribunal annexed three show cause notices without any postal
receipt. It is a fact that all those notices were not served upon the
opposite party No.4. All those notices are manufactured documents.
The Governing Body only to save his skin, annexed all those
documents. Nowhere in the counter reply they have stated that all
the notices were served upon the opposite party No.4 on registered
post. Therefore all the notices annexed in the counter reply were
forged and manufactured documents. It was submitted that, the plea
of the present petitioner before this Hon'ble Court that the judgment
dated 29.12.2020 passed in the Appeal Case No.07 of 2015 which
adversely affect the service of the petitioner is not at all tenable in
the eye of law as because the petitioner was not a necessary party
before the learned Tribunal. It is fact that at the time of filing the
appeal case before the Tribunal the opposite party No.4 has no
// 5 //
information that the present petitioner was appointed against her
terminated vacancy for which the petitioner was not made a party.
At the time of filing counter, the present opposite party No.4 for the
first time could able to know that the present petitioner was
appointed against her terminated vacancy.
6. It is seen from the record that the impugned judgment has been
passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar vide order
dated 29.12.2020 in Appeal Case No.07 of 2015 without giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties and without complying the
provisions of Section 10(a) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969.
7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 29.12.2020 passed in Appeal Case No.07/2015 is hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned State Education
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar to re-hear the same and pass a reasoned
order, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned, within a period of two months from the date of
presentation of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to file a petition
for his impletion as a party in the proceeding. The interim order
dated 24.02.2021 stands vacated.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
( S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
