IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 13055, 12754, 13233, 13236, 13239, 13277, 13278, 13279, 13281, 13282, 13284, 13285, 13338, 13339, 13340, 13341, 13563, 13566 & 13651 of 2024 W.P.(C) No. 13055 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

………………

Somanath Behera …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 15.01.2025 & Date of Judgment: 15.01.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Since the issue involved in all these cases are identical, all the writ petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

4. It is contended that all the Petitioners were appointed as Primary School Teachers basing on the resolution issued by the Govt. in the Department of School & Mass Education on 12.03.1996.

4.1. It is contended that in terms of the said resolution and the select list published circle wise, all the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions were appointed in the year 1996-1997. It is also contended that not only Petitioners were appointed in the year 1996- 97 but also they were extended with the benefit of promotion to the next higher rank while continuing in service.

4.2. It is however contended that challenging the preparation of select list circle wise and the benefit of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioners, some of the unsuccessful candidates approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3388(C) of 1996 & batch. The Tribunal vide order dtd.21.01.2003 while disposing O.A. No. 3388(C) of 1996 & batch directed for preparation of the select list district wise. It is however contended that none of the Petitioners were impleaded as Party to the Original Applications so disposed of vide order dtd.21.01.2003.

4.3. It is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal when was not complied with, writ petitions were filed before this Court in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 4449 of 2014 and batch. This Court vide order dtd.03.03.2023 when directed Opp. Party No. 3 to implement the order passed by the Tribunal on 21.01.2003, proceedings were initiated against each of the Petitioners on 09.05.2024 under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short Rules). It is contended that without providing the documents so relied on and without disposing the proceeding in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules, all the Petitioners were terminated from their services vide similar orders issued on 16.05.2024. Such orders of termination issued on

16.05.2024 in each of the present batch of cases are under challenge.

4.4. It is contended that since Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions were not Party before the Tribunal and while implementing the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3388(C) of 1996 & batch dtd.21.01.2003, further directed by this Court in its order dtd.03.03.2023 in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 4449 of 2014, in the proceeding initiated under Rule 15 of the Rules and prior to disposal of the said proceeding in accordance with law, order of termination could not have been issued on 16.05.2024 in each of the cases.

4.5. It is further contended that by virtue of the interim order passed in each of the cases, all the Petitioners are continuing in their respective posts as on date. It is also contended that since Petitioners without any fault of their own were appointed way back in the year 1996-97 and are in the service roll as on date, in view of the decision in the case of Bikash Mahalik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. reported in 2022 (I) ILR- CUT-108, so followed by th