GARUDA ADABAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as a teacher of Bankighiridi High School in the district of Sonepur in place of one Rabindranath Das whose services were terminated by the Managing Committee of the said school which is an aided educational institution. Aforesaid Rabindranath Das preferred an appeal before the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa who by his impugned order (Annexure -13) held that terminated of Rabindranath Das was bad and directed his reinstatement. Petitioner calls in question legality of the order passed by the Director, primarily on the ground that he was not a party in the appeal in the appeal filed by the said Rabindranath Das and therefore, the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. This plea has foundation on the fact that on reinstatement of Rabindranath, petitioner's service comes to and end. It is further submitted that order passed by the Director is not tenable in law.

(2.) SO far as first stand of petitioner is concerned, he contends that without hearing him the Director ought not to have passed order setting out termination order and directing reinstatement as he was a necessary party in the proceeding. We find no substance in this plea because question in appeal was correctness of order of termination passed by the Managing Committee. The petitioner who came in the vacancy occasioned on account of termination of Rabindranath Das, had no role to play in the dispute. Merely because he has been required to vacate on the order of termination being set aside, that cannot confer any right on him for participation in the appeal filed by Rabindranath Das questioning correctness of his order of termination.

(3.) THE principles of natural justice cannot be encompassed within any strait -jacket formula. They are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define, as observed by Lord Evershed M.R. in Abbot, v. Sullivan (1952) 1 KB 189. Essential characteristic of the principle is put by Romans in two maxims (1) Nemo judex in causa sua and (2) audi alterant partem, which respectively mean (i) no man can be a judge of his own cause and (ii) hear both sides. Petitioner founds his case on the second. As indicated above, petitioner had no direct interest in or nexus with the subject -matter of adjudication. So his case is not covered by the second essential.