Pradipta Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha And
2025 Latest Caselaw 6148 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pradipta Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha And on 23 June, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                        W.P.(C) No.41042 of 2023


        Pradipta Kumar Jena                      ....                    Petitioner
                                                      Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate


                                           -versus-
        State of Odisha and
        Others                                   ....  Opposite Parties
                                                      Mr. S. Das, ASC
                         Mr. D.K. Panda, Advocate for O.P. Nos.3 and 4


                           CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                         ORDER

23.06.2025 Order No.

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

2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of dismissal passed by the governing body of SVM Autonomous College under Annexure-13, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-

// 2 //

16 and communication dated 30.11.2023 under Annexure-18.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the College-O.P. Nos.3 and 4 at the initial stage raised the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is contended that since petitioner was terminated while continuing in SVM Autonomous College which is an Aided College, against such order of dismissal, the appropriate remedy is to move the State Education Tribunal by filing an appeal.

4.1. It is contended that since without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, the present Writ Petition has been filed against the order of dismissal, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

5. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the other hand placing reliance on a decision of this Court passed in the case of Dhaneswar Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and Others, reported in 1986 (II) OLR 113, contended that since prior to dismissing the petitioner from his services vide order dated 22.02.2020 under Annexure-13, statutory provision contained under Section 10-A of Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short the Act) has not been followed, alternate remedy is not a bar to approach this

// 3 //

Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Section 10-A of the Act reads as follows:-

"[10-A. Service of teachers of aided institutions not to be terminated without approval- (1) The services of a teacher [and other members of the staff] of an aided Educational Institutions shall not be terminated without obtaining the prior approval in writing of the-

(a) [Director] in the case of a teacher [and other members of the staff] of a college;

(b) Circle Inspector of Schools having jurisdiction, in the case of a teacher [and other members of the staff] or a school.

(2) Every order passed by the [Director] or Circle Inspector, as the case maybe, either according approval or refusing to accord approval under Sub-section (1) shall be communicated to the parties concerned within three months of the reference.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-

Section (1) may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of the order.]"

5.1. Similarly, this Court considering the provisions contained under Section 10-A has held as follows in Para-11 of the judgment in the case of Dhaneswar Nayak as cited (supra):-

"11. Mr. Mohanty also further contended that the petition should be rejected since the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him in law. According to Shri Mohanty, since the refusal to allow the petitioner to join the school after training amounted to termination of service which was in contravention of Sec.10-A of the Orissa Education Act, it was for the petitioner to have availed the remedy of appeal before the State Education Tribunal and that having not done so the petition must be rejected. It is well-known that non- entertainment of writ petitions for failure to avail the alternative remedy is not a constitutional requirement but is more a matter of prudcence and propriety. The rule of exhaustion of statutory

// 4 //

remedies is not relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition, but is a matter of self-imposed restriction based on a rule of policy and discretion rather than a rule of law. The termination of service of the petitioner plainly was without jurisdiction and on the face of it void. No useful purpose would have been served by compelling the petitioner to go before the alternate forum. A writ petition is maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy where the act complained of is prima facie without jurisdiction."

5.2. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Section 10-A vis-à-vis the stand of the Division Bench in Para-11 of the judgment, it is contended that the Writ Petition is maintainable on the face of such alternative remedy.

6. To the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the College-O.P. Nos.3 and 4 contended that in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner with regard to excess admission made by him during the academic session 2015-16 on the direction of the department of Higher Education, petitioner was found guilty of the allegation.

6.1. On the face of such allegation having been proved against the petitioner, there was no requirement to comply the provisions contained under Section-10-A of the Act, prior to dismissing the petitioner from his services vide order dated 22.02.2020 under Annexure-

13.

// 5 //

6.2. A further submission was also made that after terminating the petitioner from his services vide order dated 22.02.2020, permission was sought for from the Govt. vide letter issued on the same date on 22.02.2020. (Copy of the report along with letter dated 22.02.2020 so produced in Court be kept in record.)

6.3. It is contended that since after terminating the services of the petitioner vide office order dated 22.02.2020, permission was sought for from the Govt. vide another letter issued on the same date, it amounts to compliance of Section 10-A. It is also contended that subsequent to dismissal of the petitioner from his services vide order under Annexure-13, pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14608 of 2023, petitioner's prayer for reinstatement was considered and rejected vide order dated 25.07.2023 under Annexure-16 and for the 2nd time vide order dated 30.11.2023 under Annexure-18, pursuant to another order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29051 of 2023. It is accordingly contended that petitioner has been rightly terminated from his services and it requires no interference.

7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since the dispute is inter se in between the petitioner and the college, this Court is

// 6 //

competent to pass appropriate order as deem fit and proper.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court placing reliance on the provisions contained under Section 10- A of the act read with the view expressed by this Court in Para-11 of the judgment as cited (supra), is of the view that since prior to terminating the services of the petitioner vide office order dated 22.02.2020 under Annexure-13, provisions contained under Section 10-A of the act has not been followed, impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, on the face of such availability of alternative remedy, this Court is of the view that it is not a bar to entertain the present Writ Petition.

8.1. Since prior to terminating petitioner from his services vide order dated 22.02.2020 under Annexure- 13, provisions contained under Section 10-A of the act has not been followed, it is the view of this Court that the impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 22.02.2020, so passed by O.P. No.4 vide order under Annexure-13, so confirmed vide order dated 25.07.2023 under Annexure-16 and further confirmed vide order dated 30.11.2023 under Annexure-18. While quashing all those orders, this

// 7 //

Court allows the Writ Petition. Consequential follow up action be taken in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Basudev

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack