G.B. Of Soro Women'S vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2344 Ori

Orissa High Court

G.B. Of Soro Women'S vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 4 August, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                     W.P.(C) No.5391 of 2023

  In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
                                   ..................

 G.B. of Soro Women's
 College, Balasore and
 Another                                      ....                  Petitioners

                                    -versus-

 State of Odisha and Others                   ....          Opposite Parties


                   For Petitioner         :        Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate

                For Opp. Parties :            Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
                                         Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                                         with Mr. S. Rath, Advocate for
                                                O.P. No.5



PRESENT:

     THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing:10.07.2025 and Date of Judgment:04.08.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel

along with Mr. S. Rath, learned counsel for O.P. No.5 // 2 //

and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the

petitioners-Governing Body as well as the Principal-in-

Charge-cum-Secretary of Soro Women's College, Soro,

Balasore inter alia challenging judgment dated

07.01.2023 so passed by the State Education Tribunal

(In short "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.9 of 2018 under

Annexure-5. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal

allowed the claim of O.P. No.5 and with a direction on

the petitioners to allow O.P. No.5 to join in his duty in

the College and pay his salary including arrears w.e.f.

07.01.2012.

3. While assailing the impugned judgment, learned

counsel for the petitioners contended that O.P. No.4

was appointed vide order dated 15.08.1996 as a

Watchman and pursuant to the said order, O.P. No.4

joined as a Watchman in the College on 01.09.1986.

O.P. No.5 on the other hand was appointed as a Peon

// 3 //

vide order dated 15.09.1986 and in terms of the said

order, he joined as a Peon on 01.10.1986.

3.1. It is contended that in the meantime when the

College in question became eligible to receive Grant-in-

Aid under GIA Order, 1994 and as per the yardstick so

prescribed in the said order, only 2 (two) Class-IV posts

were made admissible to receive Grant-in-Aid.

Accordingly, services of O.P. No.4 was approved as he

was an earlier appointee than O.P. No.5 as against the

post of Peon vide order dated 15.03.1996 and he

received Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994. Such

approval of services of O.P. No.4 making him entitled to

receive Grant-in-Aid under GIA Order, 1994 was never

assailed by O.P. No.5.

3.2. Not only that services of O.P. No.5 was also

approved, but against the post of Watchman and he

was released with Block Grant w.e.f. 20.01.2009 under

GIA Order, 2009. Only after approval of his services as

against the post of Watchman making him entitled to

receive Block Grant under GIA Order, 2009, O.P. No.5

// 4 //

raised objection against the continuance of O.P. No.4

as a Peon in the College and his continuance and

approval as Watchman of the College by making a

representation on 03.11.2011.

3.3. After making such application, O.P. No.5 when

made an application on 04.11.2011 seeking leave of 1

(one) month w.e.f. 08.11.2011, the said leave was never

sanctioned. However, after making such application for

leave, O.P. No.5 when did not resume his duty w.e.f.

08.11.2011, a show-cause was issued by the College on

24.11.2011. Even though such show-cause was duly

received by O.P. No.5, but he declined to file his reply

on the ground that no communication has been made

by the College with regard to his objection to the

continuance of O.P. No.4 as Peon of the College so

made on 03.11.2011.

3.4. While declining to file his reply to the show-cause

vide his letter dated 04.12.2011, O.P. No.5 made

another application on the same date for extension of

leave for another one month on 04.12.2011

// 5 //

3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that by alleging that joining of O.P. No.5 so made on

07.01.2012 is not being accepted by the College, O.P.

No.5 made a representation before O.P. No.2 on

09.01.2012. Thereafter, when another application was

made by O.P. No.5 before the Director on 19.01.2012,

alleging therein that his joining is not being accepted so

submitted on 07.01.2012, petitioner-College vide letter

dated 25.01.2012, directed O.P. No.5 to join in his duty

and to show-cause for his unauthorized absence w.e.f.

08.11.2011.

3.6. It is contended that on the face of such show-

cause and direction issued, O.P. No.5 neither joined in

his duty nor submitted his reply to the show-cause for

his unauthorized absence w.e.f. 08.11.2011. However,

alleging prevention from discharging his duty w.e.f.

07.01.2012, O.P. No.5 approached this Court by filing

W.P.(C) No.7766 of 2012. But the said Writ Petition was

withdrawn vide order dated 17.07.2012 with liberty to

approach the Tribunal.

// 6 //

3.7. Basing on such liberty granted by this Court, O.P.

No.5 initially filed Appeal No.03 of 2013 inter alia

alleging therein that he was prevented to discharge his

duty in the College w.e.f. 07.01.2012. In Appeal Case

No.03 of 2013, O.P. No.5 made the following prayer:-

"The appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to admit this appeal and after hearing the Appellant's advocate allow the same, issuing appropriate order(s) directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to ..... and so much so to regularise the appellant's services as and in the post of Peon of Soro Women's college, Soro of Balasore district from the date of his joining with effect from 01.10.1986 and more so to pay him his GIA salary components under the direct payment scheme in terms of 1994 GIA Rules from the back due date with all consequential financial and service benefits.

Be further pleased to direct the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 to allow the appellant to do and discharge his duty as and in the post of Peon in the College instead of Respondent No.5.

Be further pleased to direct the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 to release the Appellant's unpaid arrear year back salary outstanding since March, 2011 within a specified time limit as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the bonafide interest of justice and equity."

3.8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that in the appeal in Appeal Case No.03 of 2013,

petitioners-College while filing its counter affidavit, took

a specific stand that O.P. No.5 was never prevented

// 7 //

from discharging the duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012 but he

remained unauthorized absent w.e.f. 08.11.2011.

3.9. A further stand was also taken that O.P. No.5

since is working as a Pump Driver under Odisha Left

Irrigation Corporation w.e.f. 01.10.1982 and the same

having been suppressed, O.P. No.5 is not eligible and

entitled to get any relief. It is contended that on the

face of such counter affidavit filed by the petitioner-

College, Appeal No.3 of 2013 was disposed of vide order

dated 22.11.2016 with an observation that if so

advised, O.P. No.5 may file a properly constituted

application if any cause of action still survives in his

favour. Relevant extract of order dated 22.11.2016

reflected in Para-7 read as follows:-

"7. Respondent No.4 is the Principal-in-charge-cum- Secretary of the College, which indicates that he is one of the representatives of the Governing Body of the College. But then he has denied the truth of the allegations raised by the appellant in the appeal memo against him He has also cited some documents to show that he has taken some steps to call upon the appellant to join his post as he was not performing his duties. Therefore, this appeal does not appear to be maintainable in its present form. Further, all the prayers contained in the appeal petition do not appear to be entertainable in the present appeal."

// 8 //

3.10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that even though the appeal in Appeal No.3 of 2013

was disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2016 with the

liberty as indicated hereinabove, O.P. No.5 in absence

of any new cause of action having been accrued in his

favour after 22.12.2016, filed Appeal No.9 of 2018 with

the following prayer:-

"The appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to admit this Appeal and after hearing the Appellant's Advocate, allow this Appeal directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 to allow this Appellant to join that back in his duty in Soro Women's College, Soro, Balasore and to pay him his salary including the unpaid arrear salary within the stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice and equity.

Be further pleased to hold and to declare that the deemed termination of this Appellant's service is illegal, inoperative and void and that the Appellant shall be treated to be in continuance in service althrough this period with full back wages w.e.f. from 8.11.2011 onwards."

3.11. It is contended that while in Appeal No.3 of 2013,

O.P. No.5 raised the plea of prevention from

discharging his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012 as well as the

approval of the services of O.P. No.4 as against the post

of Peon under GIA Order, 1994 vide order dated

// 9 //

15.03.1996, in Appeal No.9 of 2018, O.P. No.5 only

challenged the action of the College in preventing him

from discharging his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012, as his

joining letter was not accepted.

3.12. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that since Appeal No.9 of 2018 was filed challenging

the action of the Management in not allowing the O.P.

No.5 to join in his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012 which

amounts to termination, in terms of the provisions

contained U/s.10-A of the Odisha Education Act (in

short Act) such application should have been filed

within a period of 30 days from the date of such

prevention. It is contended that even though such

appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation as

provided under Section 10-A of the Act, but along with

the appeal no application was filed by the O.P. No.5

seeking condonation of delay. Not only that taking into

account the liberty granted by the tribunal in its Order

dtd.22.11.2016 in Appeal No.3 of 2013, no new cause

of action had arisen to file Appeal No.9 of 2018.

// 10 //

3.13. Even though such plea of delay was raised by

the petitioners'-College but in absence of any

application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal not

only admitted the appeal but also without condoning

the delay, allowed the appeal vide the impugned

judgment dated 07.01.2023 under Annexure-5. It is

vehemently contended that since as provided under

Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act, the

prescribed period of limitation to file an appeal is 30

days, Appeal No.9 of 2018 could not have been

entertained in absence of any application being filed by

O.P. No.5 seeking condonation of delay.

3.14. It is also contended that Appeal No.3 of 2013 so

filed by the petitioners since was disposed of vide order

dated 22.12.2016, with the observation that O.P. No.5

may file properly constituted application, if any cause

of action still survives in his favour, on the face of such

observation, no appeal with the prayer as made in

Appeal No.9 of 2018 could have been filed by the O.P.

No.5 and it should not have been entertained by the

Tribunal. But the Tribunal not only entertained the

// 11 //

appeal on the face of order dated 22.11.2016 passed in

Appeal No.3 of 2013, but also in absence of any

application seeking condonation of delay, not only

entertained Appeal No.9 of 2018, but also allowed the

same vide the impugned judgment.

3.15. It is also contended that while dealing with the

issue in allowing the claim made by O.P. No.5, the plea

taken by the petitioners-College regarding continuance

of the petitioner in OLIC w.e.f. 01.10.1982 was also not

appreciated in absence of any contrary documents

being filed by O.P. No.5. It is also contended that since

O.P. No.5 is continuing in OLIC w.e.f. 01.10.1982, on

the face of such continuance, he could not have made

his application to get the benefit of appointment as a

Peon of the College where he joined on 01.10.1986,

basing on the order of appointment issued on

15.09.1986. Such action of O.P. No.5 amounts to

suppression of material facts. But the Tribunal also did

not take into consideration such stand of the

petitioners.

// 12 //

3.16. Making all these submissions, learned counsel

for the petitioners contended that the impugned

judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law and

requires interference of this Court.

4. Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for O.P. No.5 on the other hand while

supporting the impugned judgment, contended that

O.P. No.4 though was appointed as a Watchman of the

College vide order of appointment issued on

15.08.1986 with his date of joining as 01.09.1986, but

O.P. No.5 was appointed as against the post of Peon

vide order of appointment issued on 15.09.1986 with

his date of joining as 01.10.1986.

4.1. It is contended that since O.P. No.4 was appointed

as a Watchman of the College, his services could not

have been approved as against the post of Peon while

approving his services under GIA Order, 1994 vide

order dated 15.03.1996 and approving the services of

O.P. No.5 as against the post of Watchman under GIA

Order, 2009.

// 13 //

4.2. However, it is contended that challenge made to

the approval of the services of O.P. No.4 as against the

post of Peon under GIA Order, 1994 so made in Appeal

No.3 of 2013 was not reiterated by O.P. No.5 while

filing Appeal No.9 of 2018. It is however fairly

contended that O.P. No.5 has no grievance at present

with regard to approval of the services of O.P. No.4 as

against the post of Watchman under GIA Order, 1994.

4.3. It is contended that since on the face of his joining

as a Peon of the College on 01.10.1986 in terms of the

order of appointment issued on 15.09.1986 and

approval of his services as a Watchman vide order

dated 27.08.2010 under GIA Order 2009, O.P. No.5

when was not allowed to discharge his duty w.e.f.

07.01.2012, challenging such action of the

Management, which amounts to termination, O.P. No.5

initially moved the Director, Higher Education-O.P.

No.2 and thereafter this Court in W.P.(C) No.7766 of

2012. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in

its order dated 17.07.2012, O.P No.5 moved the

Tribunal in Appeal No.3 of 2013.

// 14 //

4.4. However, the said appeal was disposed of vide

order dated 22.12.2016, but with an observation that

O.P. No.5 may file a properly constituted application if

any cause of action survives in his favour. It is

contended that since in order dated 22.12.2016 of the

Tribunal so passed in Appeal No.3 of 2013, there was

no time stipulation to make the properly constituted

application, Appeal No.9 of 2018 was filed without filing

any application seeking condonation of delay.

4.5. However, in Appeal No.9 of 2018, O.P. No.5 made

a prayer to allow the appeal and to direct the

Management to allow him to join in his duty in Soro

Women's College, Balasore and to pay his salary

including arrear salary within a stipulated time. It is

contended that even though such an application in

Appeal No.9 of 2018 was filed in terms of the provisions

contained under Section 10-A of the Odisha Education

Act, 1969, but in view of the observation made by the

Tribunal in its order dated 22.12.2016 in Appeal No.3

of 2013, there was no requirement to file any

application seeking condonation of delay.

// 15 //

4.6. It is accordingly contended that no illegality of

irregularity can be found with the action of the

Tribunal in entertaining the appeal without having any

application being filed by the O.P. No.5 seeking

condonation of delay.

4.7. It is also contended that since on the face of his

joining in the College on 01.10.1986 and approval of

his services vide Order dated 27.08.2010, O.P. No.5

was not allowed to discharge his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012

which amounts to termination, the Tribunal after going

through the documents placed before it, rightly allowed

the claim of O.P. No.5 vide the impugned judgment

dated 07.01.2023 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly

contended that no illegality of irregularity can be found

with the order passed by the Tribunal and petitioner's

be directed to implement the order.

5. To the submissions made by the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for O.P. No.5, learned counsel for

the petitioners contended that since on the face of the

plea taken by the petitioner regarding continuance of

// 16 //

O.P. No.5 in OLIC w.e.f. 01.10.1982, no document has

been filed disputing such stand of the petitioners, it

has to be held that by suppressing material fact, O.P.

No.5 get the benefit of appointment in the College vide

order dated 15.09.1986.

5.1. Not only that on the face of such continuance in

OLIC w.e.f. 01.10.1982, appointment of O.P. No.5 made

by the College vide order dated 15.09.1986 is not

legally permissible and no benefit accrues in favour of

O.P. No.5 pursuant to such order issued by the College.

5.2. A further submission was also made that taking

into account the date of birth of O.P. No.5 as

03.10.1965, O.P. NO.5 is going to attain the age of

superannuation on 31.10.2025. It is also contended

that O.P. No.5 was never prevented to discharge his

duty and joining letter alleged to have been made on

07.01.2012, so relied on by O.P. No.5 is without any

acknowledgement. Therefore, the same cannot be taken

as the joining letter of O.P. No.5.

// 17 //

5.3. It is however contended that since the application

in Appeal No.09 of 2018 was filed under Section 10-A

of the Odisha Education Act, the same could have been

filed within a period of 30 days from the date of such

prevention or within 30 days of the liberty granted by

the tribunal in its order dated 22.11.2016 in Appeal

No.3 of 2013.

5.4. Since the appeal was filed beyond the period of

limitation in any case, in absence of any such

application filed by O.P. No.5 seeking condonation of

delay, the appeal could not have been entertained with

passing of the impugned judgment.

6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other

hand contended that since the dispute is inter se in

between the petitioners and the O.P. No.5, this Court

may pass appropriate order considering the materials

available on record. It is however not disputed that

services of O.P. No.4 was approved as against the post

of Peon under GIA Order, 1994 vide order dated

15.08.1996 and that of O.P. No.5 as against the post of

// 18 //

Watchman under GIA Order, 2009 vide order dated

27.08.2010.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

considering the submissions made, this Court finds

that Appeal No.9 of 2018 was filed by O.P. No.5

challenging the action of the petitioners'-Management

in preventing the O.P. NO.5 from discharging his duty

w.e.f. 07.01.2012. As found, challenging such action of

the Management in not allowing O.P. No.5 to discharge

his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012, O.P. No.5 approached this

Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7766 of 2012.

7.1. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in

its order dated 17.07.2012, O.P. No.5 moved the

Tribunal by filing Appeal No.3 of 2013 inter alia with 2

(two) prayers i.e. alleging prevention from duty on

07.01.2012 by the Management and challenging the

order of approval of O.P. No.4 under GIA Order, 1994

as against the post of Peon. As found from the record,

the said Appeal was disposed of vide order dated

22.12.2016 with the observation that O.P. No.5 may file

// 19 //

a properly constituted application if any cause of action

survives in his favour.

7.2. Since O.P. No.5 in Appeal No.3 of 2013 challenged

the action of the Management in not allowing him to

discharge his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012 and the said

appeal was disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2016

with the liberty, no appeal with similar prayer could

have been made by O.P. No.5 in Appeal No.9 of 2018 as

no cause of action survives in his favour after

22.12.2016.

7.3. Not only that Appeal No.9 of 2018 though was

filed in terms of the provisions contained under Section

10-A of the Odisha Education Act challenging the

action of the Management in not allowing O.P. No.5 to

discharge his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012, in view the

provisions contained under Section 10-A of the Odisha

Education Act, it is the view of this Court that the

Appeal should have filed with an application seeking

condonation of delay.

// 20 //

7.4. Even if admitting the fact that in terms of the

observation made by the Tribunal in Appeal No.3 of

2013 vide order dated 22.12.2016, Appeal No.9 of 2018

was filed, but the same was also not been filed within

the prescribed period of limitation as provided under

Section 10-A of the Odisha Education Act. Therefore, it

is the view of this Court that in absence of any such

application filed by O.P. No.5, seeking condonation of

delay, Appeal No.9 of 2018 could not have been

entertained with passing of the impugned judgment.

7.5. Not only that since similar challenge made by O.P.

No.5 in Appeal No.3 of 2013 was not interfered with but

with the observation that O.P. No.5 may file properly

constituted application if any cause of action survives,

it is the view of this Court that O.P. No.5 while filing

Appeal No.9 of 2018 under Section 10-A of the Act,

challenging the action of the petitioners is not allowing

him to discharge his duty w.e.f. 07.01.2012, should

have sought for condonation of delay as the appeal was

filed much after the period of limitation on either

count i.e. 07.01.2012 or 22.12.2016. It is also the view

// 21 //

of this Court that the plea taken by the petitioners

regarding continuance of O.P. No.5 in OLIC w.e.f.

01.10.1982 having not been disproved by O.P. No.5 by

filing any document in that regard, the very

appointment of O.P. No.5 vide order dated 15.09.1986

also amounts to suppression of material fact.

7.5. In any view of the matter and in view of the

aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the

Tribunal has completely erred in allowing the

application in Appeal No.9 of 2018. Therefore, this

Court is inclined to quash judgment dated 07.01.2023

so passed in Appeal No.9 of 2018 and while quashing

the same, dismiss the appeal filed in Appeal No.9 of

2018.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and

disposed of, but without any cost.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Reason: Authentication Orissa High Court, Cuttack Location: High Court of Orissa, Dated Cuttackthe 4th August, 2025/Basudev Date: 05-Aug-2025 19:15:36