Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 8
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Sashikanta Mishra, J
SHANTIBRATA PANDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
WP(C) 13566 / 2007
The court emphasized the necessity of following due process in employment terminations and reinstatements, balancing the rights of both parties involved.
Headnote:(A) Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 - Reinstatement of teacher - The Inspector of Schools directed reinstatement of opposite party No.5 as Classical Teacher, declaring petitioner's appointment invalid due to improper termination procedures followed by the Managing Committee. (Paras 2, 11)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court held that the petitioner, appointed in the termination vacancy, could be adjusted in another vacancy while reinstating opposite party No.5, ensuring justice for both parties. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The opposite party No.5 was appointed as a Classical Teacher in 1987 but was terminated in 1995 due to unauthorized absence. The petitioner was appointed in her place in 1997. The Inspector of Schools later reinstated opposite party No.5, declaring the petitioner's appointment invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination of opposite party No.5 was illegal and that both parties could be accommodated in available vacancies.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the termination of opposite party No.5 and the authority of the Inspector of Schools to override the Director's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Managing Committee's actions were illegal and emphasized the need for procedural fairness in employment matters.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for reinstatement and adjustment of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
17th January, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner in the present writ application seeks to challenge the order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the Inspector of Schools, Balasore Circle directing reinstatement of opposite party No. 5 as Classical Teacher and declaring the petitioner’s appointment as such as invalid. The petitioner also seeks to quash the inquiry report dated 16.05.2005 of the Special Secretary, School and Mass Education Department.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the present opposite party No.5 was appointed as a Classical Teacher in Kumari (B.C.) High School, Kumari in the district of Balasore on 10.07.1987. While working as such, because of her long unauthorised absence, the Managing Committee terminated her services in 1995 after issuing a show cause notice and conducting due inquiry. After termination of the service of opposite party No.5, the petitioner was appointed as Classical Teacher on 28.02.1997 in the said vacancy. In the meantime, the opposite party No.5 challenged the action of the Management before the Director of Secondary Education by filing an appeal. The appeal came to be dismissed on 27.05.1997 confirming the order of termination passed by the Management. Opposite party No.5 challenged the order of dismissal of appeal before this Court in OJC No. 10540 of 1997, which was disposed of granting liberty to her to submit representation before the appropriate authority. Accordingly, a fresh inquiry was conducted by the Special Secretary to the Government in Department of School and Mass Education which concluded that the termination of opposite party No.5 was unjustified. Basing on such report, the Inspector of Schools, vide order dated 08.10.2007 directed reinstatement of opposite party No.5 and also declared appointment of the petitioner as invalid.
3. The petitioner challenged said order initially before this Court in the present writ application but the same was dismissed by order dated 15.07.2009 by holding that he had no cause of action. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6905 of 2011 against such dismissal of the writ application. The Supreme Court, by order dated 14.05.2015 set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. According to the petitioner, the Director as appellate authority had dismissed the appeal preferred by the opposite party No.5 way back on 27.05.1997 after considering all relevant facts including the inquiry conducted by the then Assistant Inspector of Schools. Therefore, the Inspector of Schools being a subordinate officer had no authority to review or override the decision of the Director. That apart, the Special Secretary’s inquiry was also unauthorised and conducted without notice to the petitioner or the Managing Committee. It is also stated that the termination of the opposite party No.5 was legally justified and the petitioner was appointed in the termination vacancy after following due procedure.
4. The case of the opposite party No.5 is that she was appointed as Classical Teacher on 10.07.1987. Because of her illness, she could not attend the duties in the School from 15.11.1991 to 26.11.1991. Subsequently, after recovering from illness, she submitted her joining report on 27.11.1991 along with leave application but the same was not received by the Headmaster or the Secretary of the Managing Committee. As such, she sent her joining report along with her leave application and Medical Certificate to the Inspector of Schools, Balasore Circle by registered post on 26.12.1991. Thereafter, she submitted several representations to the Inspector of Schools ventilating her grievance but no action was taken. Further, she was not paid her monthly salary from November, 1991 and suddenly she was prevented from signing on the attendance register with effect from 26.12.1991. The Inspector of Schools, by order dated 18.11.1992 directed the Secretary of the Managing Committee to allow her to
