Orissa High Court
M.C. Of G.P. High School vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 22 November, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.15307 of 2018
M.C. of G.P. High School, ..... Petitioner
Andola Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
WP(C) No. 22797 of 2018
Brajabandhu Barik ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
(Opp. Party No. 5)
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
(Opp. Party No. 6)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
22.11.2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Since both the writ petitions have been filed challenging order
dtd.29.03.2018 so passed by the Regional Directorate of Education,
Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No. 162/2011, both were heard
analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
4. Petitioner in both the cases while assailing the order in question,
contended that Private Opp. Party No. 6 (Nishakar Sahoo) alleging
prevention from discharging his duty by the Managing Committee
approached the Director, which was registered as Appeal Case No.
162/2011.
4.1. It is contended that the appeal filed by said Nishakar Sahoo was
initially allowed vide order dtd.15.10.2015. But this Court vide
order dtd.15.12.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 21745 of 2015 while quashing
the order dtd.15.10.2015 remitted the matter to the Regional
Director for reconsideration in accordance with law and by giving
due opportunity of hearing to all the Parties.
4.2. It is contended that pursuant to the said order passed by this
Court, the appellate authority though took up the matter, but allows
the claim of Opp. Party No. 6 (Nishakar Sahoo) vide the impugned
order dtd.29.03.2018 under Annexure-7 without assigning any
reason whatsoever.
4.3. It is contended that the Regional Director simply by depicting
the stand of all the Parties and without giving his own view came to
a conclusion that the decision of the Managing Committee to
appoint one new person in place of Opp. Party No. 6 (Nishakar
Sahoo) is not just and proper. It is contended that since no reason
has been assigned while disposing the appeal vide the impugned
order, the same is a nullity in the eye of law. In support of the same,
learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of this
Court reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-87.
4.4. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment reported in
2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-
"8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain
any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of
the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority
must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on
which its conclusion are based.
10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same it
becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar
(2003) 11 SCC 510]".
4.5. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013
(Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-
"13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter
and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA
Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned
Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter.
The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of
application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be
remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders.
Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities;
firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and
secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper
administration of justice. The orders of the Court must
reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or
declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner"
5. Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 6
in both the cases on the other hand contended that the appeal filed
by Opp. Party No. 6 was initially allowed by the Regional Director
vide order dtd.15.10.2015. As the same was interfered with by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 21745 of 2015 and after proper verification of
the claim of the rival parties, Regional Director since has allowed
the appeal once again, it requires no interference. It is accordingly
contended that both the writ petitions filed against the order are
liable for dismissal of this Court.
6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended
that since the dispute is inter se in between the Parties, appropriate
order can be passed basing on the materials available on record.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the appeal
in question in Appeal Case No. 162/2011 was registered before the
Regional Director of Education basing on the petition filed by Opp.
Party No. 6. In the said appeal a stand was taken that Opp. Party
No. 6 was prevented from discharging his duty by the Managing
Committee.
7.1. As found from the impugned order the Regional Director
while recording the submission of the Parties, allowed the appeal
without assigning any reason. Since reason is the soul of any order
and no reason has been assigned, which is apparent on the face of
the order, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.29.09.2018 so
passed by the Regional Director of Education under Annexure-7.
While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the
Regional Director of Education for fresh disposal in accordance
with law.
7.2. Since it is contended in the Bar that the Regional Directorate of
Education is not taking up the appeal at present, this Court directs
the Regional Director either to take up the matter as directed or
remit the matter to the competent authority for its disposal. The
appeal be disposed of as directed within a period of six (6) months
from the date of receipt of the order. All the Parties are directed to
appear before the Regional Director of Education on 30 th
November, 2024 and on their appearance a date will be fixed for
hearing of the matter.
8. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
