Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 607 (ORI)

Geetanjali Panda v. Pranaya Ballari Mohanty

2014-09-19

A.K.RATH, AMITAVA ROY

body2014
Judgment Dr. A.K. Rath, J. The appellant has prayed, inter alia, to quash the order and judgment dated 02.12.2003 and 18.12.2013 respectively passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.18138 of 2013. By order dated 02.12.2013, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant for addition of the party and eventually allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 by judgment dated 18.12.2013. 2. Though the appeal was listed for admission, this Court heard the matter on the maintainability of the application filed by the appellant in WP(C) No.18138 of 2013 for addition of party. 3. Respondent no.1 as petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the proceedings dated 21.08.2012 of the Examination Committee of the Utkal University cancelling her result of M.A Odia Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991. The case of the respondent no.1 is that she appeared at the M.A Examination, 1986 under Utkal University. Her registration number was 28628/80. She secured 48.87% of marks. Again, she appeared at the examination for enhancement of marks in the year 1991 and secured 58.5% marks. In all the examinations, the registration number assigned by the University was the same. After completion of the examination, she did her Ph.D in Odia. She was appointed as a Lecturer in Odia in Lakheswar Women’s College, Phulnakhara on 3.7.1995. While the matter stood thus, in the proceedings dated 21.08.2012, the Examination Committee of the Utkal University took a decision to cancel her result of M.A Odia Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991. Further case of the respondent no.1 is that neither any letter cancelling her result was communicated to her, nor opportunity of hearing was provided. She came to know about the cancellation of the result in G.I.A. Case No.809 of 2012 filed by the appellant claiming seniority over her and block grant against the 1st post of Lecturer in Odia. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit had been filed by the Utkal University stating that the authorities had rightly cancelled her result. 5. After hearing the matter at length, the learned Single Judge, in an elaborate judgment, quashed the notification cancelling the result of M.A Odia Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the writ petition, the appellant filed Misc. Case No.17846 of 2013 for addition of the party. By order dated 02.12.2013, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application. 6. Heard Mr. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the writ petition, the appellant filed Misc. Case No.17846 of 2013 for addition of the party. By order dated 02.12.2013, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application. 6. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 7. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that respondent no.1 is not at all eligible to hold the 1st post of Odia Lecturer in Lakheswar Women’s College, Phulnakhara. She appeared at the M.A. Odia Examination as a regular candidate in the year 1986 and secured 48.87% of marks. After lapse of six years, in the year 1991, she again appeared at the said examination as a Non-Collegiate Examination (private candidate) with the same registration number deliberately suppressing the fact that she had already obtained a master degree from Ravenshaw College. She had also appeared at the same examination in the year 1992. He further submitted that the instruction of the Utkal University to Non-Collegiate (Private) Candidate intending to appear at the Master’s Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce/Oriental Learning Examinations of 1991 provides that any registered student of the University, who has passed M.A Examination from the said University or some other University recognized by the Academic Council as equivalent thereto may be permitted to appear at the Master of Arts as Non-Collegiate (Private) Candidate in any branch other than in which he/she was previously examined. Though respondent no.1 passed M.A. examination as a regular candidate from Revenshaw College, Cuttack in the year 1986, but then she appeared at the M.A Odia Examination as a private candidate in the year 1991 with the same registration number. He further submitted that the decision of this Court would have a direct bearing in G.I.A. Case No.809 of 2012 pending before the Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. Thus the appellant is a necessary party to the writ petition. 8. Per contract, Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, supported the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the appellant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the writ petition. 9. Thus the appellant is a necessary party to the writ petition. 8. Per contract, Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, supported the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the appellant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the writ petition. 9. Though the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) may not apply with full vigor, nevertheless a writ proceeding would be governed by the principles analogous to those contained in the CPC so far as they are not inconsistent with the rules made by the High Court on the subject. Thus the principle governed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC applies to a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well known. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786 , the apex Court held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. 11. On the anvil of the decision cited supra, we have to examine as to whether the appellant is a necessary party or a proper party to the writ petition filed by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 21.08.2012 of the Examination Committee of the Utkal University cancelling her result of M.A Odia Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991. Thus the Utkal University is a necessary party to the writ petition 12. The next question is whether the appellant is a proper party to the said proceeding. As regards proper parties, the question depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case. Either one of the parties to the proceedings may apply for impleading of such a party or such a party may suo motu approach the court for being impleaded therein. As regards proper parties, the question depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case. Either one of the parties to the proceedings may apply for impleading of such a party or such a party may suo motu approach the court for being impleaded therein. In Deputy Commr., Hardoi, in charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate v. Rama Krishna Narain and others, AIR 1953 SC 521 , the apex Court held that the eventual interest of a party in the fruits of a litigation cannot be held to be the true test of impleading a person as a party (Emphasis ours). The principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions apply with full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The eventual interest of the appellant in the fruits of a litigation cannot be held to be the true test of impleading her as a party. 14. In view of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs, we hold that the appellant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to WP(C) No.18138 of 2013 filed by respondent no.1. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected her application for addition of party. Consequently she has no locus standi to maintain the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Amitava Roy, C.J : I agree.