Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 95 (ORI)

MISS. SANGHAMITRA JENA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2012-02-21

B.K.MISRA, B.P.DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT : B.K. Misra, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 21.10.2003 of the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the same is passed contrary to the findings of the Trial Court as well as the order is tainted with contradictions and non-application of mind. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-- The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics in Biju Patnaik College of Science & Education by opposite party No. 3 on 2.2.1988. On 4.7.1988, he faced an interview conducted by the Governing Body of the said College for regular appointment as lecturer in Economics and she was selected by the Governing Body and accordingly, regular appointment letter was issued in her favour on 4.7.1988. The petitioner joined service on 5.7.1988 and continued to discharge her duties till 15.7.1989. But when the college reopened after Summer Vacation on 15.7.1989 she was not allowed to join the said college. She made certain representations to the Government. An enquiry was held on the representation of the petitioner by the Deputy Director Higher Education and such report of the Deputy Director, Higher Education is annexed to the writ petition as 'Annexure-7'. But the petitioner on 25.2.1992 made further representation to the higher authorities and when she could not get any favourable response, filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as O.J.C. No. 4523 of 1992. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.4.1994 with an observation that the petitioner to approach the Common Court of Law. On 29.8.1995, the petitioner made representation to the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education in which the Director recommended to the Government that the Governing Body of the College to settle the matter expeditiously, pending of which grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-aid Order 1994 may not be released to that college. The fact remains that after disposal of O.J.C. No. 4523 of 1992 on 25.2.1992, the petitioner filed a suit which was decreed against the Governing Body wherein, it was found that the action of the management in preventing her from discharging the duties was illegal and inoperative. The fact remains that after disposal of O.J.C. No. 4523 of 1992 on 25.2.1992, the petitioner filed a suit which was decreed against the Governing Body wherein, it was found that the action of the management in preventing her from discharging the duties was illegal and inoperative. It was also ordered that the petitioner is to be deemed to be continuing in service and the management was directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 2. Two appeals were filed challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court being Title Appeal No. 21 of 1998 and T.A. No. 22 of 1998 by the Governing Body i.e. Opposite Party No. 3- The appeals were allowed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Against the judgment in Title Appeal Nos. 21 and 22 of 1998 the petitioner filed Second Appeal Nos. 53 and 54 of 1999 before this Court which were dismissed on the self-same ground of limitation which is reported in Sanghamitra Jena Vs. The Director of Higher Education, Orissa and Others, 3. Against the said order, it is brought to our notice two S.L.Ps. were filed before the Apex Court bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 24527 and 24528 of 2002 which have been dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 3085 of 2002 before this Court which was disposed of on 27.1.2003. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 27.1.2003 directed the Director, Higher Education to hear the appeal and dispose of the same within a specific period. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had filed a suit in the Civil Court and the said Court having decreed the same in favour of the petitioner, the findings of that Court should have been taken into consideration by the Director, Higher Education, Orissa while taking decision on the application of the petitioner. 5. The record in Writ Petition bearing O.J.C. No. 4523 of 1992 is placed before us. We find the following order was passed on dated 11.4.1994 in that writ petition:- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition involves highly disputed questions of fact, Both the sides rely upon some documents which are alleged to be false. 5. The record in Writ Petition bearing O.J.C. No. 4523 of 1992 is placed before us. We find the following order was passed on dated 11.4.1994 in that writ petition:- Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition involves highly disputed questions of fact, Both the sides rely upon some documents which are alleged to be false. Such question cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The proper remedy for the parties is to file a suit in the Civil Court. We, therefore, reject this petition on that ground alone. 6. It is a fact that the petitioner moved the Civil Court and the Civil Court decreed the suit of the petitioner which was later reversed by the Appellate Courts on the ground of limitation. Challenging the findings of the Appellate Court, S.L.Ps. were filed before the Apex Court but the S.L.Ps have also been dismissed. Thus the findings given by the trial Court cannot be utilised in any forum. Hence, in our considered opinion and in view of the order of this Court passed in O.J.C. No. 4523 of 1992, the Director of Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar could not have taken a second view by utilizing the findings of the Trial Court which were set aside by the higher Courts while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Director of Higher Education to be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed