SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Pradeep Kumar Dhal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha And Others – Respondents 
W.P.(C) No. 3150 of 2020, W.P.(C) No. 4075 of 2014, W.P.(C) No. 22665 of 2015, W.P.(C) No. 11862 of 2018, W.P.(C) No. 12970 of 2018, W.P.(C) No. 21522 of 2019, W.P.(C) No. 6557 of 2021, W.P.(C) No. 6969 of 2021, W.P.(C) No. 10414 of 2021,  W.P.(C) No. 16687 of 2021
Decided On : 26-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. K.K. Swain, S.C.D. Dash, P.K. Mohanty, P.K. Mohapatra, K. Swain, J.R. Khuntia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate., M/s. S.K. Dash, A.K. Otta, S. Das, A Sahoo, S. Mohanty, P. Das, Advocate, M/s. U.C. Pattnaik, S. Patnaik, M.R. Sahu, Advocate

Christ College, Cuttack is recognized as a minority educational institution under the Odisha Education Act, 1969, and related state communications attempting oversight of its management were quashed.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Education Act, 1969 - Section 2 - Determination of minority status of educational institutions - Christ College deemed to be a minority educational institution recognized under Article 30 of the Constitution of India - State's communications attempting to regulate it quashed - Writs from staff challenging management decisions deemed non-maintainable due to lack of public element. (Paras 21, 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged actions taken by the governing body of Christ College, asserting that it is a minority educational institution and thus not governed by the Odisha Education Act, 1969. The college's status was previously acknowledged by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions. (Paras 1, 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed Christ College's minority status and declared that the state's communications regarding staff management were invalid. Writ petitions filed by the college staff were found non-maintainable as they related to personal service matters. (Paras 21, 34)

Issues: The Court addressed whether Christ College qualifies as a minority educational institution and if the writs by staff against the college's governing body were maintainable. (Paras 1, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that Christ College's recognition as a minority institution under Article 30 must be honored, emphasizing that private institutions discharging public duties are still subject to restrictions based on public law matters. (Paras 19, 25)

Result: Writ petitions filed by Christ College were allowed; other petitions from staff members were dismissed.

Table of Content
1. preliminary question on minority status of christ college. (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenges to suspension orders against staff. (Para 3 , 4)
3. debate on minority vs. aided institution status. (Para 5 , 7 , 12)
4. court's recognition of prior findings on minority status. (Para 6 , 10 , 13)
5. writ jurisdiction and public duty considerations. (Para 19 , 24)
6. grievances are personal service disputes, not public law. (Para 22 , 30)
7. conclusion that suspensions must be quashed; other petitions dismissed. (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Whether Christ College, Cuttack is a minority educational institution within the meaning of Section 2 of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short the “Act, 1969”) is the preliminary question to be determined in all these writ applications. The other question to be determined is as to if these writ applications would be maintainable regardless of the answer to the preliminary question.

2. The petitioners in these writ applications (except W.P.(C) No.4075 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 11862 of 201) are Staff of Christ College and are aggrieved by action taken against them by governing body of the College. Since the preliminary question as above was raised, with consent of the parties, the said question was taken up for determination at the outset. Since this issue is common to all these writ applications, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. To such extent therefore, the facts of each of the cases are not required to be gone into at this stage.

3. W.P.(C) No. 4075 of 2014 has been filed by the Christ College challenging letters dated 13.11.2013 and 22.02.2014 issued by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha in requesting the Management to revoke the order of suspension of Sri Rabindranath Lenka (opposite party No.2 and a teaching staff) and to dispose of his prayer made in the representation dated 21.10.2013 and in reminding the Management to ensure compliance of the earlier request on threat of withdrawal of delegation of financial power bestowed on the Principal. Be it noted that as per resolution of the Governing Body dated 11.09.2013, the Management had placed Sri Lenka on suspension with immediate effect.

4. W.P.(C) No. 11862 of 2018 has been filed by the Christ College with prayer to quash the letters dated 07.06.2018 and 06.07.2018 in relegating the order of suspension passed against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Dhal (opposite party No.4, a teaching staff) from the date of expiry of one month in terms of second proviso to Rule 21(2) of the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 and in reminding the Management to comply with such order.

The stand taken by the Christ College in both these writ applications basically is, it being a minority managed institution, the provisions of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder are not applicable to it and therefore, the impugned communications made by the Director Higher Education are contrary to the provision under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of all other petitioners (Staff of the College) that Christ College, Cuttack is not a minority educational institution but an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3 (b) of the Act, 1969 and therefore, all the relevant rules framed under the Act, 1969 relating to conditions of service of its employees are applicable to it.

6. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State; Mr. S.K. Dash and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the Christ College; and Ms. Pami Rath and Mr. U.C. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21522 of 2019 and opposite party N





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top