MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. SURANJITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Managing Committee of Delhi Public School, Damanjodi, Koraput, represented through its Principal-cum- Secretary, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the judgment dated 16.04.2010 passed by the Director, Secondary Education Orissa in Appeal No. 9 of 2008, which was communicated to the opposite party no.1 vide memo dated 21.04.2010 in Annexure-9, whereby termination of opposite party no.1 has been held to be not valid and direction has been issued to the petitioner to take opposite party no.1 back into service, while granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed against opposite party no.1 as per rules.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Delhi Public School is a private institution, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and imparting education to the students having been established in different parts of the Country.

(3.) Mrs. P. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that opposite party no.1, having abandoned the service voluntarily, is not entitled to get any relief and non-consideration of the same by the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa in his impugned order dated 16.04.2010 cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that fraud has been played on the petitioner, State authorities as well as this Court in suppressing the material facts. Thereby, the order so passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa cannot sustain being vitiated which goes to the very root of the matter. Apart from the same, it is further contended that opposite party no.1 has not acted as a disciplined employee of the institution, rather her conduct which is apparent on the face of the record would go to show that she has not carried out the direction of the authorities. Thereby, the entire conduct of opposite party no.1 suffers from insubordination and there is dereliction in duty for remaining absent from the institution without prior permission and, more so, she prosecuted her studies as a regular candidate without getting prior permission of the authority, namely, the petitioner herein. Thereby, equity cannot stand in her favour so as to get relief as directed by the Director. More particularly, when this fact was placed before the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, he did not take note of the same and passed the order impugned in Annexure-9 dated 16.04.2010 directing the petitioner to take back opposite party no.1 into service, while granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed against opposite party no.1 as per rules, holding further that the termination of opposite party no.1 from service was not valid, that itself is an outcome of non-application of mind. Therefore, the petitioner seeks quashing of the same.