Orissa High Court
Munmun Satpathy & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 31903 of 2024
Munmun Satpathy & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate
(Opp. Party No. 7)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
29.01.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Pursuant to order dtd.27.01.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
produced the instruction provided by the D.E.O. vide letter
dtd.27.01.2025 in Court. The same be kept in record. Basing on the
instruction learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that one
Minakshi Nandy is continuing as Headmistress-in-charge of the
School.
3. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
appearing for the State and Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel
appearing for Opp. Party No. 5.
4. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition inter alia
challenging the communication dtd.05.12.2024 so issued by Opp.
Party No. 3 under Annexure-10. Vide the impugned communication
Opp. Party No. 3 by treating Opp. Party No. 5 as Headmistress-in-
charge of the School, has permitted her to submit the proposal for
reconstitution of the Managing Committee.
5. It is contended that vide Annexure-9 notification dtd.28.11.2024
the self-same Opp. Party No. 3 taking into account the earlier order
passed on 07.10.2024 under Annexure-7 requested the
Headmistress-in-charge of the School namely one Minakshi Nandy
to submit the proposal for reconstitution of the Managing
Committee of the School in question. But on the face of Annexure-7
& Annexure-9 notification, Opp. Party No. 3 has wrongly allowed
Opp. Party No. 5 by describing her as Headmistress-in-Charge of
the School to take step for reconstitution of the Managing
Committee. Petitioners being aggrieved by such action of Opp.
Party No. 3 approached this Court in the present writ petition.
5.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that in
the meantime vide another letter issued by the self-same Opp. Party
No. 3 on 31.12.2024 (copy of which is produced in Court today), the
earlier order issued on 07.10.2024 under Annexure-7 has been
revived till disposal of the present writ petition.
6. Considering the instruction provided by the D.E.O. and revival of
order at Annexure-7, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
contended that in view of such subsequent development which has
taken place, appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party o. 3 to
take step for reconstitution of the Managing Committee by
permitting Smt. Meenakshi Nandy to submit the proposal.
6.1. It is also contended that taking into account the conduct of Opp.
Party No. 5, this Court on the application made by the State in
W.P.(C) No. 7918 of 2018 and vide order dtd.07.11.2024 under
Annexure-8 modified the earlier order passed on 08.08.2024 and
with a direction on Opp. Party No. 3 to call upon the incumbent
Headmistress-in-charge of the School to submit a fresh proposal for
reconstitution of the Managing Committee and the Headmistress-in-
Charge submitted the same in accordance with law.
6.2. It is contended that the earlier writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 7918
of 2018 was filed by the present Opp. Party No. 5 and vide
judgment dtd.08.08.2024 under Annexure-5, when she was
permitted to submit the proposal for such reconstitution of the
Managing Committee, State filed I.A. No. 11983 of 2024 for
modification of the Judgment dtd.08.08.2024. This Court vide order
dtd.07.11.2024 under Annexure-8, allowed the modification prayed
for by the State and directed Opp. Party No. 3 to call upon the
incumbent Headmistress-in-charge to submit the proposal. Modified
order passed on 07.11.2024 reads as follows:-
"The District Education Officer, Mayurbhanj (opposite party
No.3) shall call upon the incumbent Headmistress-in-charge of
the institution to submit a fresh proposal for reconstitution of
the Managing Committee and the Headmistress shall submit the
same in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably
within a month to the DEO. Mayurbhanj for onward
transmission to the office of the Director, who shall pass
necessary orders thereon in accordance with law, within two
months thereafter."
6.3. It is contended that in terms of such modified order passed on
07.11.2024, Annexure-9 was issued by permitting the incumbent
Headmistress-in-charge namely Minakshi Nandy to submit the
proposal. But on the face of such order passed by this Court on
07.11.2024 and the notification issued on 28.11.2024 under
Annexure-9, the impugned communication was issued on
05.12.2024 permitting Opp. Party No. 5/Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.
7918 of 2018 to submit the proposal. It is contended that in view of
the nature of order passed on 07.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 7918 of
2018 under Annexure-8, Opp. Party No. 5 is not competent to
submit the proposal. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
communication dt.05.12.2024, so issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under
Annexure-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.
5 on the other hand contended that since Opp. Party No. 5 is
continuing as Headmistress-in-charge of the School, she is
competent to submit the proposal and no illegality or irregularity can
be found with the impugned communication issued on 05.12.2024
under Annexure-10.
8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made and taking into account the order
passed by this Court on 07.11.2024 under Annexure-8, this Court is
of the view that Opp. Party No. 5 is not competent to submit the
proposal.
8.1. In view of the nature of order available under Annexure-8, this
Court is of the view that Opp. Party No. 5 cannot be allowed to
submit the proposal as Headmistress-in-Charge of the School.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the communication
dtd.05.12.2024 so issued by Opp. party No. 3 under Annexure-10
and quash the same accordingly.
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:07:23
