Disposed

Surendranath Padhiary v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC11 Dec 2024WP(C)/22866/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a government letter directing the disengagement of Additional Section Teachers, holding that since no consequential action had been taken, there was no cause of action and the interim order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Interim order vacated; petition disposed of with observation that any consequential action must be taken in accordance with law.

Surendranath Padhiary Vs State of Orissa — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 22866 of 2016

¶2

Surendranath Padhiary & Anr. ..... Petitioners Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶5

..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

¶6

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶7

11.12.2024

¶8

Order No. 11

¶9

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶10

Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the direction issued by the Govt. in the Department of School & Mass Education vide letter dtd.01.12.2016 under Annexure-5.

¶12

It is contended that the Petitioners are working as an Additional Section Teachers with due order of appointment issued by the Managing Committee of the School. It is contended that it is the Managing Committee being the employer of the Petitioners, who is competent to disengage the Petitioners by following due process of law. But vide the impugned communication, Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 while issuing Annexure-5, directed Opp. Party No. 2 to issue necessary direction to the concerned District Education Officers for instructing the School Managing Committee for disengagement of the Petitioners and similarly situated Additional Section Teachers.

¶13

Page 1 of 3.

¶14

4.1. It is contended that since Managing Committee is only competent to disengage the Petitioners by following due process of law, such a direction could not have been issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-5. It is further contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 02.01.2017, no coercive action has been taken against the Petitioner as on date.

¶15

Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that the impugned communication is issued by the Govt. to Opp. Party No. 2. It is also contended that after issuance of the impugned communication, no further communication has yet been issued by Opp. Party No. 2 to the concerned D.E.Os to take consequential action in the matter. It is accordingly contended that since no consequential action basing on the impugned communication has yet been taken either by Opp. Party No. 2 or by Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner has no cause of action to challenge the same.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the impugned communication has been issued by the Govt. directing the Opp. Party No. 2 to issue necessary direction to the concerned D.E.Os and with a further direction on the D.E.Os to instruct the School Managing Committee for disengagement of the Petitioners and similarly situated Additional Section Teachers.

¶17

6.1. Since no document has been filed showing that any further consequential action has been taken basing on Annexure-5, it is the view of this Court that Petitioners have no cause of action to challenge the same. While not inclined to interfere with the impugned communication, it is only observed that if any

¶18

Page 2 of 3.

¶19

consequential action is taken basing on the impugned communication, the same be taken in accordance with law by Opp. Party No. 4.

¶20

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶22

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶23

Sneha

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Dec-2024 14:56:57

¶26

Page 3 of 3.

Surendranath Padhiary v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendranath Padhiary v. State of Orissa

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

Ratnakar Das Vs State of Odisha

Gb of Prasannamani College of Physical Education and Yoga,Tigiria Vs State of Orissa

Manoj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Basanta Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Saukat Vs State

Priyambada Priyadarshini Vs the Controller of Examination, Shri Jagannath Sankrit Vishva Vidyalaya