Narendra Kumar Mandal vs Director Of Secondary Education
2023 Latest Caselaw 14020 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.A. No. 356 of 2023

Narendra Kumar Mandal                  .....                                     Appellant
                                                            Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                       Vs.
Director of Secondary Education,       .....                                  Respondents
Odisha and others
                                                                    Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
             CORAM:
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
                 MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

                                               ORDER

09.11.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

02.

2. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate.

3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 27.01.2023 by which learned Single Judge came to find that since the school is taken over by the Government with effect from 07.06.1994 and the petitioner therein was appointed on 27.04.1995, the Managing Committee had no authority to provide appointment to any person, therefore, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by opposite party no.3 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

4. Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the appellant was appointed on 27.04.1995, since his appointment was not approved by the authorities, he had earlier approached this Court by filing OJC No. 569 of 1993 and OJC No. 4566 of 1996. This Court vide judgment dated 26.02.1998 dismissed the writ application with observation that the appellant had not approached this Court with clean hand. Thereafter the appellant filed Misc. Case No. 4241 of 1998 for

modification/clarification of the judgment dated 26.02.1998. This Court disposed of the Misc. Case vide order dated 23.07.1998 wherein this Court had taken note of the statement of the appellant that against the post of Hindi Teacher held by the appellant, no one has yet been appointed and if the appellant is allowed to continue, none will be prejudiced. This Court had also taken note of the submission of the Government Counsel to the effect that the post will have to be filled up in accordance with the requirement of the Rules. Accordingly, this Court observed that it will be open to the school authority to allow the appellant to function as the Hindi Teacher of the School and this Court is sure that the appellant, as stated being eligible, will be duly considered and if he will be found over aged, the authority will condone it. Accordingly, the appellant was allowed to continue in the school and in the year 2002 her appointment was approved. After approval was made when the salary was not released, he approached the authority and the authority vide order dated 11.11.2005 instead of releasing the salary in favour of the appellant revoked the approval order passed on 14.06.2002. Challenging the same the appellant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2715 (C) of 2014 and the after abolition of the tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court and registered as WPC (OAC) No. 2715 of 2014, which has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2023. But the learned Single Judge rejected the case of the appellant without appreciating all such facts and as such the same is liable to be interfered with.

5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that since the school was taken over with effect from 07.06.1994 and the appellant was appointed on 27.04.1995, the management cannot have any power to pass such order of appointment. Thus the appointment order issued by the Headmaster of the school is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. When this mistake was revealed at that point of time, the order of approval of the

appellant was recalled and thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority. According to him the learned Single judge appreciating such fact passed the order, which does not require any interference by this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is the admitted fact that the school was taken over by the Government with effect from 07.06.1994 and the appellant was appointed on 27.04.1995. Such engagement is de hors the Rules and, as such, absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thereby, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record when he observed that once the school is taken over by the Government, the Managing Committee has no authority to provide appointment to any person. Since the appellant was appointed much after the school was taken over, such appointment is illegal and, consequentially, when it was brought to the notice of the authority the same was recalled. Therefore, such recall order cannot be faulted with.

7. In view of such position, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC (OAC) No. 2715 of 2014 is well justified and does not require any interference by this Court.

8. Thus, the writ appeal merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed.

                                                                                   (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                                                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE


SignatureArun
          Not Verified                                                                 (M.S. RAMAN)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
                                                                                          JUDGE

Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Odisha Date: 10-Nov-2023 12:45:28