The Governing Body Of vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14511 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             FAO No.80 of 2014

         The Governing Body of
         Radhaballav Mahavidyalaya          ....              Appellant
                                                  Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

                                            -versus-
         State of Odisha and Others          ....              Respondents
                                                                State Counsel
                                                       Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate


                            COROM:
                JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                              ORDER

13.11.2023 Order No

20. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and learned State Counsel.

3. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the judgment dated 06.12.2013, so passed by the State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.544 of 2011.

4. The aforesaid GIA case was filed by the Respondent No.3 inter alia with a prayer to approve his services as against the 1st post of lecturer in Economics, Radhaballav Mahavidyalaya, at Bairipur, Bantaligram in the district of Puri. The said application of the Respondent No.3 when was allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2013, the present Appeal has been filed.

5. In course of hearing, it is fairly contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 that by the time the // 2 //

GIA Case was filed in GIA Case No.544 of 2011, the Respondent No.3 was no more in service, his services being terminated w.e.f. 25.02.2000. It is also fairly contended that such order of termination was never challenged by the Respondent No.3. Even though the said facts was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the appellant herein, the Tribunal allowed the claim of Respondent No.3.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that since by the time the petitioner filed the GIA application seeking approval for his services, he was already terminated w.e.f. 25.02.2000, no order directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to approve his services would have been passed. In view of such position, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment dated 06.12.2013 so passed in GIA Case No.544 of 2011 and quash the same.

7. The FAO is accordingly allowed.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

Basudev

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Nov-2023 15:21:18