IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.41042 of 2023 Pradipta Kumar Jena …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC Mr. D.K. Panda, Advocate for O.P. Nos.3 and 4 CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

23.06.2025 Order No.

09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of dismissal passed by the governing body of SVM Autonomous College under Annexure-13, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-

16 and communication dated 30.11.2023 under Annexure-18.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the College-O.P. Nos.3 and 4 at the initial stage raised the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is contended that since petitioner was terminated while continuing in SVM Autonomous College which is an Aided College, against such order of dismissal, the appropriate remedy is to move the State Education Tribunal by filing an appeal.

4.1. It is contended that since without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, the present Writ Petition has been filed against the order of dismissal, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

5. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the other hand placing reliance on a decision of this Court passed in the case of Dhaneswar Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and Others reported in 1986 (II) OLR 113, contended that since prior to dismissing the petitioner from his services vide order dated 22.02.2020 under Annexure-13, statutory provision contained under Section 10-A of Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short the Act) has not been followed, alternate remedy is not a bar to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Section 10-A of the Act reads as follows:-

“[10-A. Service of teachers of aided institutions not to be terminated without approval- (1) The services of a teacher [and other members of the staff] of an aided Educational Institutions shall not be terminated without obtaining the prior approval in writing of the-

(a) [Director] in the case of a teacher [and other members of the staff] of a college;

(b) Circle Inspector of Schools having jurisdiction, in the case of a teacher [and other members of the staff] or a school.

(2) Every order passed by the [Director] or Circle Inspector, as the case maybe, either according approval or refusing to accord approval under Sub-section (1) shall be communicated to the parties concerned within three months of the reference.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub- Section (1) may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within one month from the date of receipt of the order.]”

5.1. Similarly, this Court considering the provisions contained under Section 10-A has held as follows in Para-11 of the judgment in the case of Dhaneswar Nayak as cited (supra):-

“11. Mr. Mohanty also further contended that the petition should be rejected since the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him in law. According to Shri Mohanty, since the refusal to allow the petitioner to join the school after training amounted to termination of service which was in contravention of Sec.10-A of the Orissa Education Act, it was for the petitioner to have availed the remedy of appeal before the State Education Tribunal and that having not done so the petition must be rejected. It is well-known that non- entertainment of writ petitions for failure to avail the alternative remedy is not a constitutional requirement but is more a matter of prudcence and propriety. The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is not relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition, but is a matter of self-