Afr Snigdha Patnaik vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1489 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             W.P.(C).No. 3839 of 2019

       (An application under             Articles        226   and    227     of   the
       Constitution of India;)
                                       ---------------

AFR    Snigdha Patnaik                          ......           Petitioner

                                         -Versus-

       State of Odisha and another              ....... Opposite Parties

       Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
       _______________________________________________________

          For Petitioner               : M/S. M.K. Mohanty, S.K. Samal.
                                       S. Jena. S. Sekhar and J. Biswal
                                       Advocates.

           For Opp. Parties :           Mr. P.K. Panda, (O.P.No.1)
                                        M/S. S. Pratap, B. Samal
                                        (O.P.No.5)
                                        A.K. Dash (O.P.No.4)

       _______________________________________________________
       CORAM:
             JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                       JUDGMENT

17th February, 2023

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ application with the

following prayer;

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:

             i)     Admit the writ application.
             ii)    Call for the record.

iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 under Annexure-10 shall not be quashed.

iv) If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the rule absolute and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/writs direction/direction quashing impugned order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 under Annexure-10.

v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the opposite parties, particularly opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 allow the petitioner to continue as Trained Graduate teacher under the opposite party No.4 institution and she may be entitled to get all financial and consequential service benefit as due and admissible to such post within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

vi) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.

And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray."

2. Brief facts, of the case are that the petitioner was

appointed as an Assistant Teacher (TGT) vide order dated

31.08.2000 in Maa Jagulai Khetra Mohan High School,

Haripa in the district of Jagatsinghpur. While continuing as

such, he came to know that her name had not been

included in the Annual Renewal of Recognition application

form of the Board of Secondary Education and thereafter,

she was prevented from discharging her normal duties. She

preferred an appeal before the Director of Secondary

Education, Odisha on 06.03.2014. Since no action was

taken by the Director, she approached this Court in W.P.(C).

No.17485 of 2014. By order dated 12.09.2014, this Court

directed the Director of Secondary Education to dispose of

the appeal as expeditiously as possible. Since no action was

taken despite such order passed by this Court, the

petitioner filed contempt application, which was also

disposed of granting two months time to the authorities to

comply with the order. Ultimately, order dated 04.01.2016,

the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the

Director basing on the report submitted by the District

Education Officer. Challenging such order of rejection, the

petitioner approached this Court again in W.P.(C). No. 1250

of 2016. By order dated 29.06.2017, this Court quashed the

order dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Director and remitted

the matter to the appellate authority to consider the appeal

afresh after affording opportunity to all concerned. The

order passed by this Court is quoted herein below:

"Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respective parties and after going through the records this Court finds that on the basis of the report furnished by the District Education Officer, Jagatsinghpur, the appellate authority namely the Director of Secondary education, Odisha has passed the order impugned but no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner, thereby, the appellate authority has committed a grave error in passing the order impugned without complying with the principles of natural justice. In such view of the matter,

the order dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure-5) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider afresh by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned without being influenced by its earlier order and pass an independent order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of communication of the order. Till the appeal is disposed of, status quo with regard to release of grant-in-aid shall be maintained."

4. Pursuant to such direction, the appeal was heard

afresh and disposed of by order dated 21.01.2019 again

rejecting the case of the petitioner. Such order is impugned

in the present writ application being enclosed as Annexure-

10.

5. It is submitted by Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. S.

Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal

has not been disposed of in terms of the direction issued by

this Court inasmuch as the documents relied upon by the

petitioner appellant have not been taken note of. Secondly,

the earlier order passed by the Director was only reiterated

without considering the merits of the contentions raised by

the petitioner. It is further submitted that to prove that the

petitioner has been in the service of the School since the

year 2000, the petitioner-appellant had furnished several

documents before the Director such as, the application for

renewal of recognition of different years containing the name

of the petitioner, but the same was not taken into

consideration.

6. A perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-

10 reveals that the Director has taken into account, the

appointment letter dated 31.08.2000 issued by the

Secretary, Mr. N.C. Swain and held that he being a Govt.

employee could not have acted as the Secretary of the

Managing Committee of the School. This, according to

learned senior counsel, amounts to the making out a third

case altogether.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this

Court finds substance in the submissions raised on behalf

of the petitioner that there is no finding as regards the

documentary evidence submitted by her in support of her

claim of discharging duties since the year 2000 till date.

8. Learned Standing counsel for the School and

Mass Education Department, Mr. B. Mohanty, also fairly

submits that the order does not reflect any finding as

regards the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner

before the Appellate Authority.

09. Mr. S.S. Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the

managing committee objects to the contentions raised by

the petitioner and submits that the appellate authority has

considered all aspects of the matter and took a reasonable

view, which does not warrant any interference whatsoever.

10. After considering the submissions and the

materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that

if evidence in the form of certain documents are available on

record, it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to

consider the same and to render his findings thereon. While

remitting the matter for fresh disposal in the previous writ

application, this Court obviously intended that the appellate

authority should apply his judicial mind to all the facts and

circumstances of the case including the evidence, if any

adduced by the parties. A reading of the impugned order

reveals that the appellate authority has not complied with

such order is letter and spirit. As such, the impugned order

is rendered unsustainable in the eye of law.

11. The writ application is therefore allowed. The

impugned order under Annexure-10 is quashed. The matter

is remitted to the appellate authority to rehear the appeal in

accordance with law taking into account all the documents

and other evidence that may be produced by the parties as

also the contentions raised before him. The appeal shall be

disposed as early as possible, preferably within a period of

four weeks. For convenience, the parties are directed to

appear before the Director of Higher Secondary Education

on 24.02.2023 at 3.30 p.m. for receiving further

instructions. Status quo with regard to release of grant-in-

aid in respect of the petitioner shall be maintained till

disposal of the appeal.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, 17th February, 2023/ Deepak Parida,