Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Kaminilata Sahu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 9746 of 2017
Decided On : 11-08-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sidheswar Mallik.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. N.K. Praharaj, Government Advocate, Mr. M.K. Dash.
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the relevant rules in matters of appointment and disengagement of employees in educational institutions.
Headnote:
Appointment - Lecturer in Sanskrit - Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Services and Teachers and Members of the Staff) and Aided Educational Institution Rules, 1974 Rules - Rules 21 and 8
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit on a contractual basis, was disengaged from her services without prior notice or explanation. The Petitioner approached the Court seeking to quash the disengagement order and regularize her services.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and was not in consonance with the relevant rules. The Court referred to a similar case and held that the Petitioner was entitled to a similar order in her favor.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, validity of appointment, applicability of rules and instructions
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order was found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and the relevant rules, leading to its quashing and the reinstatement of the Petitioner.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The Petitioner was to be reinstated in her post and given all consequential benefits within a period of two months.
JUDGMENT :
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
The Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Sanskrit on 12th September, 2009 on contractual basis in Biren Mitra Memorial Women’s College, Cuttack. The said College is an aided educational institution. While continuing as such, an advertisement was published on 24th August, 2013 inviting candidates for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. The Petitioner, though continuing in the post applied pursuant to the said advertisement. An interview was conducted in which the Petitioner stood first. She was issued a fresh appointment order on 24th December, 2013 as Lecturer in Sanskrit on consolidated pay of Rs.2000/-per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.5,300/-. On 4th May, 2017, the Principal of the College (Opposite Party No.4) issued an office order disengaging the Petitioner and some other Lecturers from their services w.e.f. 1st May, 2017. Neither any prior notice was issued nor any explanation was called for from the Petitioner. No reason was also ascribed for taking such action. Being aggrieved thus, the Petitioner has approached this Court claiming the following relief:-
“Quash the impugned order dated 4.5.2017 disengaging the Petitioner as at Annexure-5. Direct/order that the Petitioner’s services as a lecturer in Sanskrit shall be regularized and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. No counter affidavit is filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2.
3. The Governing Body of the Institution (Opposite Party No.3) and the Principal of the College (Opposite Party No.4) have filed a joint counter. In the said counter, it is stated that in view of the restrictions issued by the State Government vide order dated 20th April, 1998, the appointment of the Petitioner being without prior permission of the State Government is not valid. Moreover, such appointment was made without resolution of the Governing Body nor approval of the appropriate authority. The Petitioner was appointed on consolidated remuneration which was conditional in nature. The Regional Director of Education, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 24th September, 2014 specifically directed that no appointment should be made without his prior permission and in case of any violation, the Opposite Party No.4 will be held responsible. Therefore, when the Opposite Party No.4 came to know that the appointment of the Petitioner is without prior permission of the authorities concerned, he passed the impugned order disengaging the Petitioner and others from their services. It is further stated that since the Petitioner’s appointment was invalid to begin with, she does not have the locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Further, the instructions issued by the Regional Director of Education in his letter dated 10th August, 2015 with regard to disengagement of contractual/guest faculties have been referred to and it is stated that the Petitioner was disengaged as there is no requirement for engagement of Lecturer in Sanskrit as per the prescribed work load. The instructions issued on 19th September, 2016 of the Regional Director with regard to engagement of guest faculty was also referred to.
4. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the instructions issued by the Regional Director do not have retrospective effect. The Petitioner is neither a contractual employee nor a guest faculty but was appointed against regular vacant post on consolidated pay, which was enhanced from time to time by the Governing Body. Therefore even otherwise, the instructions of the Regional Director are not applicable. It is further stated that there is requirement of three Lecturers in Sanskrit and therefore, it is in correct to say that there is no work load for teaching faculty in the said discipline.
5. Heard Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Government Advocate for Opposite Party No
