Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1387 (ORI)

Gouranga Prasad Jena v. Jaladhara Chakra

2017-12-01

A.K.RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.K.Rath, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against an affirming judgment. The suit was for declaration that the order dated 26.12.1983 passed by the Secretary, Nandini Debi High School at Kanapur in the district of Keonjhar directing the plaintiff to hand over the charge is illegal. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that Nandini Debi High School was established in the year 1973. He was appointed as teacher of the School on 01.10.1974. Subsequently, he was appointed as Headmaster of the School as per resolution by the Managing Committee dated 31.07.1982. In the year 1982, the School received Rs.44,441/-as grant-in-aid in two instalments. It was further pleaded that one Prafulla Kumar Jena was appointed as Headmaster of the School illegally. Defendant no.1, Secretary of the School, sent a notice on 26.12.1983 directing the plaintiff to hand over charge of the Office of the Headmaster to Prafulla Kumar Jena. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. Defendant nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 filed their written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants was that the plaintiff was appointed as Hindi Teacher and functioning as such till 31.07.1982. In the absence of the Headmaster, he was in charge of the Headmaster temporarily from 31.07.1982 and functioning as such till a qualified Headmaster was available. Under the Education Code, the Headmaster must be a trained graduate. Since the plaintiff was not a trained graduate, he could not be appointed as Headmaster of the School. Thus the letter issued by the Secretary dated 26.12.1983 was valid. 4. The defendant no.3 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. According to him, the plaintiff was in charge of the Headmaster till a permanent Headmaster was appointed. 5. On the, inter se, pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck five issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. The learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff lacks requisite qualification to hold the post of Headmaster. He was an untrained teacher. The letter issued by the Secretary was legal. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Anandapur in T.A. No. 06 of 1984, which was eventually dismissed. 6. He was an untrained teacher. The letter issued by the Secretary was legal. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Anandapur in T.A. No. 06 of 1984, which was eventually dismissed. 6. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Have the courts below committed any error of law in upholding the relief of the appellant on 26.12.1983 by the Secretary of the disputed Managing Committee ?” 7. Heard Mr. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 8. The suit was filed in the year 1984. At the time of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff was 47 years old. In the meantime, thirty three years have elapsed. The plaintiff is eighty years old by now. He has retired from service two decades back on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus no effective decree can be passed. In view of the same, the substantial question of law framed by this Court does not require any adjudication. 9. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.