SUDHIR KUMAR ROUT Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal stated to be filed U/S 24-C of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short 'the Act') seeks for quashing of order passed on 2/9/2022 by the learned Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (SET) in G.I.A Case No. 106 of 2020 allowing the intervener-petitioner(R-5) to be arrayed as a party 'OP No.5' in the said proceeding and consequently, refusing to review such order by way of another order passed on 4/8/2023.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in precise are the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in History in Abhimanyu Samanta Singhar College, Balia and he joined in service on 27/4/1992 and his post was approved by the Director on 12/11/2012 and the appellant being the senior most Lecturer of the College was allowed to function as the Principal-in-charge-cum-Secretary of the College by an order of approval of Director passed on 12/1/2017, but due to institution of W.P.(C) No. 22530 of 2012 by the Principal of said College challenging the separation of Degree College and Junior College, the appellant could not function as Principal-in-charge of the Degree College. However, on disposal of the writ petition on 8/4/2016, the appellant was once again approved as a Principal-in-charge-cum-Secretary of College by the order of Director passed on 2/8/2019. While the matter stood thus, due to some unverified allegation, the Regional Director caused an enquiry behind the back of the appellant and directed withdrawal of Grain-in-Aid (GIA) of the appellant by an order passed on 29/10/2020 which is the subject matter of challenge in GIA Case No.106 of 2020 and accordingly, the learned State Educational Tribunal (in short 'SET') granted interim stay of operation of the impugned order passed on 29/10/2020 of Regional Director of Education, Odisha and during the pendency of GIA case, the State Government brought a guideline for appointment of Principal-in-charge and Head of the Department of Aided College to fix the inter-se seniority amongst the Lecturer in Block Grant Institution on the basis of their date of birth, but not on the basis of their date of joining and since there are other staff who are senior to him(appellant) in age, but joined later in service, the appellant challenged the aforesaid guideline in W.P.(C) No. 33716 of 2020 to allow him to continue as Principal-in-charge, but despite the interim order passed in the writ petition, the State Government passed order on 19/1/2021 to remove the appellant from the post of Principal and allowed OP No. 5 to function as Principal-in-charge notwithstanding to the fact that OP No.5 is not the immediate junior to the appellant, rather one Pravakar Jena was his immediate junior. Accordingly, the appellant filed Contempt Petition in CONTC No. 573 of 2021 and when notice was issued in the contempt petition, the State Government voluntarily restored the appellant to the post of Principal on 30/6/2021, but OP No.5(R-5) taking advantage of his illegal continuance as Principal of the Institution has filed an intervention application in GIA Case No. 106 of 2020 which was allowed by the P.O., SET and therefore, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although R-5 is not a necessary party, but the learned P.O., SET has passed order allowing him to intervene in the GIA case as OP No.5, but the fact remains that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant and the impugned order was passed without hearing the appellant and OP No.4 the Governing Body of the College and thereby, the impugned order allowing the intervention application of OP No.5 is unsustainable in the eye of law. Mr. Das has further submitted that when the impugned order came to the knowledge of the appellant, he filed a review application which was also rejected by the P.O. SET vide Annexure-15 by holding that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review its own order. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Das has prayed to allow the appeal by quashing the impugned orders of the Tribunal.