Quashed

Arabinda Panda v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC24 Nov 2023WP(C)/20822/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa quashed an order disengaging the petitioner from service due to an alleged false affidavit regarding applications for other educational districts. The Court held the order unsustainable as the advertisement was not specific about other revenue districts and allowed the petitioner to continue work based on an interim order.

What did the court decide?

The order of dis-engagement is quashed; the petitioner is allowed to continue in his work as before.

Arabinda Panda Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.20822 of 2013

¶3

Arabinda Panda …. Petitioner Mr. A.S. Nandy, Advocate -versus-

¶4

State of Odisha and Others

¶5

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶7

ORDER

¶8

Order No. 24.11.2023 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶9

2. Heard Mr. A.S. Nandy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶10

3. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order of dis-engagement passed by the Opposite Party No.2 on 07.08.2013 under Annexure-7. It is contended that pursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-2 on 08.12.2011, the petitioner made his application in respect of Dhenkanal Education District coming under Dhenkanal Revenue District. On being found suitable and selected, the petitioner was issued with the order of engagement on 10.05.2013 under Annexure-3. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner also joined in the School in question.

¶11

// 2 //

¶12

4. It is contended that subsequently while so continuing, the petitioner was issued with a show cause on the ground that since the petitioner has made his application in respect of another Education District and he has submitted a false affidavit as required in the advertisement under Annexure-2, he is not eligible to continue. It is contended that even though the petitioner submitted his reply indicating therein that in terms of Annexure-2, he has made his application only in respect of Dhenkanal Education District coming under Dhenkanal Revenue District and he has not made any false affidavit as contended by the opposite parties, but without considering the same, the petitioner was disengaged from his service vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2013 under Annexure-7. Mr. Nandy, learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 06.09.2013, the petitioner is continuing in his work as on date.

¶13

5. Mr. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, so filed by the opposite party no.2. It is contended that pursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-2, though the petitioner made his application and was selected with issuance of the order of engagement on 10.05.2013 under Annexure-3, but subsequently, on verification it

¶14

Page 2 of 5

¶15

// 3 //

¶16

is found that the petitioner has made his application in respect of Jajpur Education District. It is also contended that as required in the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, the petitioner has to file an affidavit that he has not made any application in respect of any other Education District. Since the petitioner filed a false affidavit indicating therein that he has not made any application in respect of any other Education District after due consideration of his reply to the show cause the petitioner was dis-engaged vide the impugned order under Annexure-7. It is contended that no illegality has been committed by the Opposite Party No.2 in dis-engaging the petitioner vide order at Annexure-7.

¶17

6. To the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Samal, Mr. Nandy contended that since in the advertisement under Annexure-2, there is a stipulation that one has to file an affidavit indicating therein that he has not made any application in respect of any other Education District and in the advertisement under Annexure-2 in respect of Dhenkanal Revenue District, the petitioner has only made his application in respect of Dhenkanal Education District, it cannot be said that he has filed a false affidavit.

¶18

6.1 . Mr. Nandy, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that there is no specific stipulation in the advertisement at Annexure-2 to file an affidavit

¶19

Page 3 of 5

¶20

// 4 //

¶21

that he has not made any application in respect of any Education District coming under any other Revenue District. Since in terms of Annexure-2 and in respect of Dhenkanal Revenue District, the petitioner only made his application in respect of Dhenkanal Education District, it cannot be held that the Petitioner has made a false affidavit. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner has made application in respect of Hindol or Kamakhyanagar Education District coming under Dhenkanal Revenue District as indicated under Annexure-2. Therefore, the ground in which the Petitioner was disengaged is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶22

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the stipulation contained under Annexure-2, it is the view of this Court that the petitioner has not suppressed anything in his affidavit. As required in the advertisement, the petitioner submitted the affidavit by indicating therein that he has only made his application in respect of Dhenkanal Education District coming under Dhenkanal Revenue District. Since the advertisement under Annnexure-2 is not very specific asking the candidates to file an affidavit that he has not made any application in respect of any Education District coming under any other Revenue District, the stand taken by the Opposite Parties while disengaging the petitioner is not

¶23

Page 4 of 5

¶24

// 5 //

¶25

sustainable in the eye of law. Not only that by virtue of the interim order passed on 06.09.2013, the petitioner is continuing in his work as on date. Therefore, in any view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order of dis-engagement passed under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the same and while quashing the same, allow the petitioner to continue in his work as before.

¶26

The Writ Petition is disposed accordingly.

¶27

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Page 5 of 5

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication of order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Nov-2023 16:58:19

Arabinda Panda v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arabinda Panda v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karunakar Mallick Vs State of Orissa

Fakir Charan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Pabitra Kumar Sahoo Vs Sushil Kumar Lohani, I.A.S.

Dr. Satya Prasanna Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Akshaya Ku.Baral Vs State and Ors.

Jyotsnarani Sarangi Vs State of Odisha