Biren Kumar Paul vs State Of Odisha & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 12869 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              FAO No.427 of 2023

        Biren Kumar Paul                     ....                Appellant
                                                  Mr. B.S. Tripathy (1), Advocate

                                            -versus-

        State of Odisha & Anr.               ....               Respondents
                                                         Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA


                            CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                      ORDER

17.10.2023 Order No

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

2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy (1), learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondents.

3. The Appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order dtd.07.09.2023 so passed by the State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No. 152 of 2010 under Annexure-6.

4. It is contended that the prayer of the Appellant for approval of his services for the purpose of release of Grant-in-aid when was initially rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dtd.02.02.2018 under Annexure-3, the same was challenged before this Court in FAO No. 338 of 2018. This Court while setting aside the said Judgment, remitted the matter to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision vide order dtd.12.04.2023 under Annexure-4.

// 2 //

4.1. It is contended that after such remand of the matter when the Appellant found that some development has taken place in between the filing of the case in the year 2010 and the remand order passed by this Court on 12.04.2023, he filed an application seeking amendment of the appeal memo under Annexure-5. It is contended that even though the prayer made in the amendment petition to amend the appeal memo was relevant for effectual adjudication of the matter, but the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the same passed the impugned order on 07.09.2023 under Annexure-6 by rejecting the application for amendment so filed under Anenxure-5. It is contended that the proposed amendment so filed under Annexure-5 is very much essential and unless is allowed, appellant will be seriously prejudiced in getting an order in his favour. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is liable for interference of this Court.

5. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondents on the other hand contended that after remand of the matter even though the Appellant filed an application for amendment under Annexure-5, but the proposed amendment as prayed for can very well be agitated by the Appellant at the time of final hearing of the matter. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the application while passing the impugned order under Annexure-6.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that after remand of the matter by this Court vide its order dtd.12.04.2023, the Appellant filed an application for amendment under Annexure-5. This Court after going through the said

// 3 //

amendment petition and the proposed amendment so indicated in the schedule also finds that the proposed amendment has not been properly described and the proposed amendment to accept the written notes of submission as part and parcel of the appeal memo is not entertainable. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity on the part of the Tribunal in rejecting the application vide its order under Annexure-6.

6.1. However, this Court is of the view that the Appellant may file a fresh application seeking amendment of the appeal memo before the Tribunal by confining his amendment with specific pleas. It is observed that, if any such fresh application seeking amendment of the appeal memo is filed by the Appellant within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the Tribunal shall take a lawful decision on the same without being influenced by the earlier rejection order so passed on 07.09.2023.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Sneha

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Oct-2023 16:10:00