The judgment in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 and the principle decided therein covers the members of the petitioner's association, including the declaration that there is no illegality in the withdrawal letter dated 9.9.2020.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition at the instance of the Orissa Secondary Education School Association, Nimchouri, Cuttack represented by its General Secretary inter alia challenging the letter no.12563/SME dated 9.9.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Schools and Mass Education thereby withdrawing the effect of letter No.16029 dated 1.8.2019 issued by the same authority on the premises being passed in non-application of mind, colourable exercise of power, arbitrary as well as contemptuous being contrary to the judgment pronounced by this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vrs. State of Odisha and others, reported in 2016(I)-ILR-CUT- 1162. The issue involved herein already involved in another case also heard on the same date involving W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 and being decided by a judgment of this date in favour of the petitioner involved therein. Mr.B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate on the major issue involved herein particularly in an attempt to make a distinction between supersession and repeal, reading through the provision at Section 6 of General Clauses Act, Central Act and Section-5 of General Clauses Act of the State submitted that this provision deals with the effect on Repeal of a previous enactment whereas the case at hand taking into account the Rule 2020 being brought on suppression of previous rule attempted to establish the position involving both remain completely different and rights accrued under the old Rule to the pending cases still exist.

To establish his such contention, Mr.Routray, learned Senior Counsel relied on decision in the case Gammon India Ltd. Vrs. Special Chief Secretary and other, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 354 and another case involving Union of India Vrs. Glaxo India Limited, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 668. This aspect along with several other aspects have been considered in the disposal of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 and judgment in the said case delivered today also applicable to the case at hand. The only exception involved herein an objection being raised by learned Advocate General appearing for the opposite parties questioning the maintainability of such dispute at the instance of an association.

2. For the majority of the issue involved herein being covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 and the principle decided therein since also covers the members of the petitioner's association, this Court while applying the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27364 of 2020 also extends the benefits to the members of the petitioner's association including declaration that there is no illegality in the withdrawal letter dated 9.9.2020. This Court next proceeds only to adjudicate if the writ petition is maintainable in the eye of law ?

3. Mr.Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner while attending to the preliminary objection of the State- Opposite Parties on the maintainability of the proceeding involving the locus of the petitioner, Mr.Routray also submitted that since petitioner is a registered Association of Teachers in the State of Odisha is entitled to espouse the cause of its members. It is also pleaded that the issue involved here since teaching staff in educational institution for involving a common cause in entertaining the writ petition, it will rather check innumerable litigants on similar issue flowing to this Court. Mr. Routray also attempted to satisfy that the writ petition is very much maintainable based on the principle of law already decided by the Hon'ble apex Court through several judgments. In the process, Mr.Routray, learned Senior Advocate took this Court to two Constitutional Bench decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of B.S. Nakara Vrs. Union of India, reported in 1983(1) SCC 305 and the other one involving Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association Vrs. Union of India, reported in 2006 (8) SCC 309 attempted to satisfy his such contention.

4. Mr.Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General on the other hand placing seri