Orissa High Court
Bishnupriya Das vs State Of Odisha & Others on 25 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O. No.142 of 2017
&
FA.O. No.154 of 2017
Narendra Kumar Agasti
(in F.A.O. No.142 of 2017)
Bishnupriya Das ... Appellant
(in F.A.O. No.154 of 2017)
Mr. D. Mishra, Advocate
(in F.A.O. No.142 of 2017)
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
(in F.A.O. No.154 of 2017)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Respondents
(in both the cases)
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
(in both the cases)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
25.07.2025
Order No.
&
13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Both the I.A. have been filed for condonation of
delay.
3. Heard.
4. Considering the grounds taken in the Misc. Cases,
the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to
deposit cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) each
by the learned counsel for the appellants in both the
appeals before the Orissa High Court Bar Association
Welfare Fund by 1st of August, 2025.
5. The Misc. Cases are accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
FA.O. Nos.142 & 154 of 2017
1. Heard.
2. Since both the appeals have been filed against
a common judgment passed by the State Education
Tribunal dated 22.11.2016 in G.I.A. Case No.84 of
2011 and G.I.A. Case No.513 of 2011, both the
appeals are heard analogously and disposed of by
this common order.
3. Both the appeals have been filed by the
present appellants challenging the impugned
common judgment dated 22.11.2016 and claiming
approval of the service as against the post of
Classical Teacher in Kalandi Charan High School at
Shyamdundarpur in the district of Balasore.
3.1. It is the case of the appellant in FAO No.142 of
2017 that he was duly appointed as a Classical
Teacher vide the order of appointment issued by the
Managing Committee on 24.12.1990, basing on the
Managing Committee Resolution No.41 dated
21.12.1990. Similarly it is the claim of the appellant
in FAO No.154 of 2017 that she was appointed as a
Classical Teacher vide order issued on 31.08.1993
in terms of the Resolution No.65 dated 31.08.1993.
3.2. It is found from the impugned judgment that
allegations and counter allegations have been made
by both the appellants against each other with
regard to their appointment and continuance as
against the post of Classical Teacher in the school
in question. As also found from the impugned
judgment, various reports have been prepared with
regard to such appointment and continuance of
both the appellants as against the post in question.
3.3. While some of the reports have gone in favour
of the appellant in FAO No.142 of 2017, in some
reports the same has gone in favour of the appellant
in FAO No.154 of 2017. It is also found that
respondent no.3, the then Circle Inspector of
Balasore Circle has also prepared a report by
making a personal visit of the school. On the face of
such materials before the Tribunal, the Tribunal
rejected the claim of both the appellants vide the
impugned common judgment dated 22.11.2016.
3.4. Considering the fact the appellant in FAO
No.142 of 2017 was appointed by the Managing
Committee on 26.12.1990 and the appellant in FAO
No.154 of 2017 on 31.08.1993 as against the single
post of Classical Teacher, it is the view of this Court
that the Tribunal should have come to a conclusion
as to who was duly appointed by the Managing
Committee of the school in accordance with law and
the guidelines prevailing at the relevant point of
time, basing on the materials produced by both the
appellants and the stand taken by the Managing
Committee as well as the State respondents.
3.5 However, it is found that the Tribunal without
giving a definite conclusion with regard to
entitlement of the appellants and who was duly
appointed and eligible to continue as against the
post in question, simply rejected both the claims
vide impugned judgment dated 22.11.2016, which
as per the considered view of this Court is not right
approach adopted by the Tribunal. It is the view of
this Court that the Tribunal should have come to a
definite conclusion with regard to the claims of the
appellants and decide the issue in favour of one of
the appellants with the finding who was duly
appointed.
3.6 In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is
inclined to quash the judgment dated 22.11.2016 so
passed by the Tribunal in G.I.A. Case No.84 of 2011
& G.I.A. Case No.513 of 2011. While quashing the
impugned judgment, this Court is inclined to remit
both the matters to the Tribunal to take a decision
afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to both
the appellants and the State respondents as well as
the Managing Committee of the school.
3.7 The Tribunal is also directed to obtain
instruction through the State respondents more
particularly the present District Education Officer
as to who was actually appointed and who
continued in the school and discharge the duty of
Classical Teacher on the face of the claim made by
both the appellants. The Tribunal is directed to
dispose of both the G.I.A. cases as expeditiously as
possible, preferably by the end of this year
analogously and both the appellants are directed to
cooperate for disposal.
Both the appeals are accordingly stand
disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
amit
