Orissa High Court
Afr Rajanigandha Kumura vs State Of Odisha & Others on 23 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 4215 of 2020
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of
India.
---------------
AFR Rajanigandha Kumura ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Mandal, M. Mohapatra,
A.C. Sahoo, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda,
Standing Counsel for
School & Mass Education
Department.
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
rd
23 September, 2022
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner was appointed as Sikshya
Sahayak on 07.12.2006. After completion of three years of
service she was treated at Junior Teacher. While the
petitioner was continuing as such in Bindupur P.U.P.
School under Naktideula Block, one Lambodar Behera
was deployed as C.R.C.C., Jamujori Cluster on the basis
of Office Order dated 08.08.2013 of the Collector,
Sambalpur. In order to be relieved from the post of
Headmaster in Bindupur P.U.P. School, the said
Lambodar Behera handed over the charge to the petitioner
as no other regular teacher was posted in the said School.
Subsequently, one Basanta Kumar Kissan (opposite party
No.4), who was also a Junior Teacher in the said
Bindupur P.U.P. School, was regularized w.e.f.
03.01.2013. After his regularization, the opposite party
No.4 was assigned the charge of Headmaster of Bindupur
P.U.P. School on the basis of the order passed by the
Block Education Officer on 25.07.2016. The petitioner was
directed to handover the detailed charges to opposite
party No.4 but she did not do so, whereupon she was
called upon to summit explanation and her remuneration
was also held up for the period from July, 2018 to
December, 2018. The petitioner approached the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2966 of 2018
challenging the order directing her to hand over charges to
opposite party No.4. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by
order dated 11.12.2018 by directing the opposite party
authorities to treat the paper book of the O.A. along with
its annexures as representation and to consider and
dispose of the same within a period of two weeks.
Pursuant to order of the Tribunal, the Block Education
Officer vide order dated 06.09.2019 rejected the claim of
the petitioner. Being aggrieved, she approached this Court
in W.P.(C) No. 19180 of 2019, which was disposed of by
order dated 27.09.2019 directing the Director, Elementary
Education to take a decision on the representation said to
have been filed by the petitioner within a period of three
weeks. Pursuant to such order, the Director of Elementary
Education by order dated 10.12.2019 rejected the prayer
of the petitioner for allowing her to continue as in-charge
Headmaster of Bindupur P.U.P. School. Challenging such
rejection of her representation, the petitioner has
approached this Court with prayer to quash the same and
to allow her to continue as Headmaster of Bindupur
P.U.P. School. It is contended by the petitioner that the
said Basanta Kumar Kissan (opposite party No.4) being
junior to her, could not have been appointed as the
Headmaster and secondly, she should also have been
regularized with effect from the date the opposite party
No.4 was regularized.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite
party No.3 reiterating the undisputed facts averred in the
writ petition. It is further stated that after completion of
three years as Junior Teacher, the petitioner was time and
again called upon by the opposite party No.3 to produce
relevant documents, such as, testimonials and original
certificates for verification in order to regularize her
service as Level -V Teacher, but she has failed to do so.
On the other hand, the opposite party No.4 being
admittedly senior to the petitioner, was rightly regularized
w.e.f. 03.03.2013 and assigned with the duty of in-charge
Headmaster of the school. There is no illegality in the
impugned order.
3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder mainly
contending that the opposite party No.4 is not senior to
her as both of them were appointed as Sikshya Sahayak
on 07.12.2006. Since the petitioner was originally
assigned the work of in-charge Headmaster, she should
have been allowed to continue as such. Moreover, the
petitioner should have been regularized also on
03.01.2013 instead of 13.01.2022, when she was actually
regularized.
4. Heard Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel
for School and Mass Education Department.
5. It is argued by Mr. Mandal that the petitioner
and opposite party No.4 having been appointed as Sikshya
Sahayak on the same date, i.e., 07.12.2006, the opposite
party no.4 cannot be treated as senior to her. It is also
contended that the authorities having regularized the
services of opposite party No.4 w.e.f. 03.01.2013 cannot
make him senior to the petitioner, inasmuch as she is
eligible to be regularized from the said date. These aspects
have not been taken into consideration by the opposite
party No.1 while passing the impugned order.
6. Mr. P.K. Panda, on the other hand, has
submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the
petitioner and opposite party No.4 may have joined on the
same date, yet opposite party No.4 was regularized with
effect from 03.01.2013, while the petitioner was
regularized only on 13.01.2022. This makes the opposite
party No.4 senior to the petitioner in the cadre and
therefore, he was rightly asked to remain in-charge of the
Headmaster of the school.
7. The main grievance of the petitioner appears to
be the direction of the opposite party authorities to
handover the charge of in-charge Headmaster to opposite
party No.4. Firstly, the petitioner was occupying the said
post purely as a stop-gap arrangement upon deployment
of the previous incumbent, namely, Lambodar Behera as
C.R.C.C., Jamujori Cluster. As such, she cannot claim
any vested right over the said post. Secondly, the opposite
party No.4 being a regular Teacher was thought fit by the
authorities concerned to discharge the duties of
Headmaster. No illegality can be attributed to this
decision.
8. After going through the impugned order
carefully, this Court finds that taking into account the
seniority of opposite party No.4 and the contractual
nature of engagement of the petitioner at the relevant time
as Junior Teacher, the decision to direct her to handover
charge of Headmaster to opposite party No.4 was taken.
This Court finds no infirmity much less any illegality in
such decision so as to interfere.
9. As regards the claim for regularization w.e.f.
2013, this is a matter beyond the purview of the present
writ application. Be it noted here that the petitioner has in
the meantime been regularized w.e.f. 13.01.2022. She
claims the benefit of regularization from 2013, obviously
seeking parity with opposite party No.4, who is also said
to have joined as Sikshya Sahayak with the petitioner on
the same date. Now opposite party No.4 was regularized
way back on 03.01.2013. The petitioner never came
forward to challenge non-consideration of her case for
regularization. On the contrary, there are materials on
record to show that despite being called upon time and
again by the opposite party No.3, the petitioner did not
furnish the required documents for verification and
consideration of her case for regularization. Therefore, this
Court finds no reason to allow the petitioner to agitate the
stale issue at this distance of time.
10. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court
finds no merit in the writ petition, which is therefore
dismissed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 23rd September, 2022/ A.K. Rana
