GOVERNING BODY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application challenging the judgment dated 05.09.1997 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Appeal No. 31 of 1996 directing to reinstate opposite party No. 3 in the post of Lecturer in Political Science of the petitioner College forthwith. Mr. Ajit Kumar Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the said judgment on the ground that the services of opposite party No. 3 having been terminated on 24.03.1986, i.e. prior to the institution became aided, provisions contained under Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 are not applicable and the institution having become aided only on 27.01.1990 and the order of termination having been passed on 18.02.1986, as per Circular dated 27.03.1983, the opposite party No. 3 had to file an appeal before the Director within thirty days. The said remedy having not been availed by him, the Education Appeal No. 31 of 1996 filed before the Education Tribunal is not maintainable. Therefore, the judgment passed by State Education Tribunal is an out come of non-application of mind. The termination order having been passed in due compliance with the principles of natural justice, the same should not have been interfered with. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Choudhury has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Nityananda Lenka and others v. State of Orissa and others,2011 1 OrissaLR 524 (FB) and The Managing Committee of Gangapur High School v. The Presiding Officer, Orissa State Education Tribunal and another,1989 1 OrissaLR 42.

(2.) Mr. P.C. Pradhan, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 strenuously urged that the opposite party No. 3 was restrained by the petitioners to discharge his normal duty as a Lecturer in Political Science against first post, which amounts to termination of service. The entire action has been taken by the petitioner in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner and as such, the termination is bad which is violative of principle of natural justice, thereby, the learned Tribunal is justified in directing the petitioner to allow the opposite party No. 3 to discharge his duty as Lecturer in Political Science against the first post of the College in question. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Dhaneswar Nayak v. State of Orissa and others, 1986 2 OrissaLR 113; Garuda Adabar v. State of Orissa and others, 1997 2 OrissaLR 521; Namita Dhal v. State of Orissa and others, 1994 2 OrissaLR 550 and State of Orissa and others v. Bhagaban Nahak,2008 LabIC 1025

(3.) Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State supports the contention raised by learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 justifying the order passed by the learned State Education Tribunal.