Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 922 (ORI)

SACHIDANANDA DAS v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-12-03

A.S.NAIDU, B.N.MAHAPATRA

body2009
JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Heard Mr. U.B. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Tripathy. Learned Counsel for the State & Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 6. 2. the Petitioner in this Writ, Petition seeks to assail the order passerby the Director, Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No. 59 of 2000. 3. According to Mr. Mohapatra, the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Chandrasekhar High School, Damando in the district of Cuttack on 6.7.1989. He worked in the said school till 1993 & on 6.7.1993 he resigned. His resignation was accepted by the Managing Committee by resolution dated 19.12.1993. In the year 1997, he once again approached the Managing Committee to appoint him as a teacher. The said application was considered & he was once again engaged with effect from 9.11.1997, He worked in the school till 10.7.1999. According to the Petitioner, he applied to sponsor his name as-an in-service candidate for undergoing B.Ed., training. As the said representation was not considered, he approached this Court in OJC No. 7845 of 1999. The said writ application was disposed of on 2.7.1999, wherein it was held that the session for taking admission in B.Ed., course, i.e., 1998-99 having already ended, no effectual order can be passed. However, it was observed that for the next session, i.e., 1999-2000 the case of the Petitioner along with others shall be considered keeping in mind his seniority & eligibility. It is submitted that in the year 1999 the Petitioner applied the school authorities to relieve him so that he can take admission for the B.Ed., course & by Order Dated 7.7.1999 the Managing Committee certified that they have no objection to relieve the Petitioner for undergoing B.Ed., training. The grievance of the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is that two days thereafter, i.e., on 10.7.1999 his services were terminated/consequently, he could not take admission in B.Ed., course. Assailing the order of termination, he filed an appeal before the Director,-Secondary Education & the same was registered as Appeal Case No. 59 of 2000. The order passed in the appeal as stated above, is assailed in this Writ Petition. 4. The Director after hearing the parties & perusing the records, dismissed the appeal mainly on three grounds. Assailing the order of termination, he filed an appeal before the Director,-Secondary Education & the same was registered as Appeal Case No. 59 of 2000. The order passed in the appeal as stated above, is assailed in this Writ Petition. 4. The Director after hearing the parties & perusing the records, dismissed the appeal mainly on three grounds. It was held that though the termination order was passed on 10.7.1999 & the period for preferring an appeal is one month, the Petitioner filed the same on 6.6.2000 without any petition for condonation of delay. Thus, the same was grossly barred by limitation. It was further observed that following the principles of recruitment, Sri Bibekananda Swain, Opp. Party No. 6 who was a trained graduate was appointed in the post which fell vacant in view of termination of the Petitioner. But then, the said Bibekananda Swain was not impleaded as a party to the appeal. The Director, therefore, held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. So far as merit of the case is concerned, the Director observed that the Petitioner was not a trained teacher. The school in question was brought within the grant-in-aid fold & in consonance with the notification issued on 18.1.1999 Ta recognized school is prohibited from engaging untrained teachers. The said order of the Government of Orissa, School & Mass Education Department further clearly stipulated that the provisions of the Rule's should be strictly adhered to & the Government should be ensured that untrained teachers are not appointed in High Schools while granting provisional recognition. Thus, the school had no other option but to terminate the services of the Petitioner, who did not possess the requisite qualification. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner assails the order passed by the Director mainly on the ground that due to the latches oh the part of the management, the Petitioner could not acquire training. According to him, after relieving him to take admission on 7.7.1999, the school authorities acted illegally & with material irregularity in terminating his services within 3 days. 6. The main prayer of the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is to quash the order of termination. Unfortunately, the termination order is not annexed to the Writ Petition. Law is well settled that a document, which is not a part of the brief cannot be set aside. 6. The main prayer of the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is to quash the order of termination. Unfortunately, the termination order is not annexed to the Writ Petition. Law is well settled that a document, which is not a part of the brief cannot be set aside. That apart, admittedly, in consonance with 1999 circular issued by the Government, a High School is prohibited from appointing any untrained teacher. According to the Director, the school has not committed any error in-terminating the services of the Petitioner, who was an untrained hand. No material is produced before this Court to reveal that the Petitioner ever got a seat in any of the Training Colleges. Even otherwise, till date the Petitioner has not acquired training & is unsuitable to be appointed as Teacher. 7. The vacant post was filled up in the year 1999 & Opp. Party No. 6 was appointed. By virtue of such appointment, a right had accrued on Opp. Party No. 6 Unfortunately, he was not impleaded as a party before the Director. Even otherwise, the appeal filed before the Director was also grossly barred by time. It appears that the Director disposed of the appeal in the year 2000. This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2004. The delay of four years also remains unexplained. 8. Taking a cumulative assessment of all the facts & circumstances discussed above, this Court finds that the impugned Order Dated 21.8.2003 passed by the Director in Appeal Case No. 59 of 2000 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition accordingly fails & is disposed of. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree.