Binaya Kumar Parida vs State Of Odisha & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 282 Ori

Orissa High Court

Binaya Kumar Parida vs State Of Odisha & Others on 7 May, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         FAO No.577 of 2023

        Binaya Kumar Parida                ....                         Appellant
                                                            Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate

                               -versus-
        State of Odisha & Others
                                  ....                               Respondents
                                                      Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
                                        Mr. S.K. Samal, Adv. for Resp. No.3


                           CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                         ORDER

09.05.2025 Order No.

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Memo containing the Hologram fee of Rs.50/- filed by the Respondent No.3 in Court be kept in record.

4. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dtd.31.10.2023 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) in GIA Case No.53 of 2021 under Annexure-5. The said application was filed by the present appellant seeking approval of his services as against the post of PET in Shree Shree Raghunath Jew Degree Mahavidyalaya, Gania in the district of Nayagarh.

// 2 //

4.1. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was appointed against the vacancy caused due to the resignation of earlier incumbent PET on 11.11.2000 vide order of appointment issued on 24.01.2001 by the Secretary, Governing Body of the College.

4.2. It is contended that the earlier incumbent PET was appointed on 24.12.1992, where he joined on 02.01.1993. The said PET namely Dillip Kumar Maharana was appointed in terms of the resolution passed by the Governing Body on 25.10.1992 and advertisement was issued on 30.10.1992. But the said PET when submitted his resignation on 11.11.2000, the appellant on being found suitable pursuant to the resolution dtd. 25.06.2001, was appointed.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that even though the present appellant was appointed against the vacancy caused due to the resignation of the earlier incumbent, the ground on which the claim of the appellant was rejected vide the impugned judgment that the qualifying period of five years on 01.06.2003 is not being fulfilled, cannot be accepted as the post was in occupation of the previous incumbent w.e.f. 02.01.1993 in terms of the order of appointment issued on 24.12.1992.

4.4. It is also contended that since the appellant failed to produce the relevant documents showing the

// 3 //

appointment of the previous incumbent vide order dtd.24.12.1992 with his date of joining on 02.01.1993 and the resignation made by the said PET on 11.11.2020, the Tribunal in absence of all those document refused to extend the benefit as prayed for.

4.5. It is also contended that since the Governing Body never appeared before the Tribunal and was set ex-parte, the appellant was also handicapped and could not produce the document in support of his claim and accordingly the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

4.6. Placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 in the present appeal, it is contended that since the Governing Body now admits that the appellant was admitted against the vacancy caused due to the resignation of the earlier incumbent PET who was continuing w.e.f. 02.01.1993, the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision.

5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 also does not dispute the contention raised by the appellant and contended that the appellant in fact was appointed against the vacancy caused due to the resignation of the previous incumbent PET on 11.11.2000.

// 4 //

5.1. It is also contended that the previous PET was duly engaged by the Governing Body of the College vide order of appointment issued on 24.01.1992, where he joined on 02.01.1993. As the said PET tendered his resignation on 11.11.2000 because of personal difficulty, the same was accepted by the Governing Body vide its Resolution dtd.25.06.2001, the appellant thereafter was duly appointed in terms of the said Resolution dtd.25.06.2001.

5.2. It is contended that since the appellant was appointed against the vacancy caused due to the resignation of the previous PET, it is to be held that the appellant is the holder of the said post w.e.f. 02.01.1993.

6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State though on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and contended that the claim of the appellant has been rightly rejected. But taking into account the stand taken by Respondent No.3 in the affidavit filed before this Court, contended that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and taking into account the ground of dismissal of the application vis-à-vis the stand taken by Respondent No.3 in the affidavit filed before this Court in the present appeal, this

// 5 //

Court is of the view that the matter requires a fresh adjudication by the Tribunal.

7.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment dtd.31.10.2023 so passed by the Tribunal in GIA Case No. 53 of 2021. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision on the claim of the appellant.

7.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 also fairly contended that Respondent No.3 will make his appearance before the Tribunal on or before 30.05.2025 by filing their appearance memo and / or Vakalatnama. This Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order.

8. Accordingly, the FAO stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK