Orissa High Court
Alina Sethy vs State Of Odisha & on 11 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.177 of 2019
Alina Sethy .... Appellant
Mr. J. Gupta, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & .... Respondents
Others Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
Mr. B.B. Biswal, Adv
(for Respndent No.3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order 11.05.2023
No
12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned A.G.A.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present appeal
challenging the order dt.18.02.2019 so passed by the
State Education Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.544 of 2014.
4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel contended that
initially seeking extension of benefit of grant-in-aid,
the appellant approached the Tribunal in G.I.A Case
No.85 of 2010. The Tribunal vide its judgment
dt.12.12.2011 disposed of the matter with a direction
on the Opp. party Nos.1 & 2 therein to verify the
admissibility of the 2nd post of Lecturer in Oriya in the
College in question and to take a decision on the claim
// 2 //
of the appellant within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the order.
4.1. It is contended that in terms of the said order,
when the claim of the appellant was rejected by the
Director, Higher Education vide his order dt.26.7.2014
by holding that the appellant is not eligible for her
approval as against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Oriya,
the appellant once again moved the Tribunal in G.I.A
Case No.544 of 2014.
4.2. It is contended that the Tribunal only on the
ground that the matter was earlier decided in G.I.A
Case No.85 of 2010 and no 2nd GIA case is
maintainable on the self-same cause of action, declined
to entertain the matter. It is contended that on the
earlier occasion, the Tribunal directed Respondent
Nos.1 & 2 herein to consider the claim of the appellant.
When on such consideration, the Director rejected the
claim of the appellant, the appellant moved the
Tribunal in GIA Case No.544 of 2014. Therefore the
earlier order passed by the Tribunal cannot be a bar to
entertain the fresh application, on the face of the
rejection of the claim of the appellant so made by the
Director vide his order dt.26.07.2014. Accordingly, it is
contended that the impugned order dt.18.02.2019 is
not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned A.G.A also fairly
contended that the matter should have been decided by
the Tribunal on merit after the same was rejected by
// 3 //
the Director in terms of the earlier order passed by the
Tribunal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials available on record, it
is found that the Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.85 of 2010
directed the authority to consider the claim of the
appellant. On such consideration, when the Director,
Higher Education rejected the claim vide order
dt.26.07.2014, the appellant moved the Tribunal in
G.I.A Case No.544 of 2014 challenging the said order.
As per the considered view of this Court, the earlier
order passed in GIA Case No.85 of 2010 cannot be held
as a bar for entertaining the G.I.A case as the claim of
the petitioner in terms of the earlier order was rejected
by the Director.
6.1. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to
quash the order dt.18.02.2019. While quashing the
same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to
decide the GIA Case No.544 of 2014 on merit by giving
opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Since the case is of the year 2014, the Tribunal is
directed to dispose of GIA Case No.544 of 2014 by the
end of this year, if there is no other legal impediment.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
FAO is disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack sangita Judge
Date: 16-May-2023 16:17:17
