ANIRUDHA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY IN EDUCATION AND YOUTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions arise out of one and the same order of the State Education Tribunal. Bhubaneswar, in Appeal Case No. 14 of 1983 and, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In the aforesaid appeal (Appeal No. 14 of 1983) filed at the instance of the erstwhile Headmaster of Sri Ma Sri Aurobindo Uchha Vidyapitha, the Tribunal directed the Managing Committee and the Secretary of the said Managing Committee to treat the Headmaster to be in service all along and to give him all the consequential benefits. The Managing Committee has approached this Court challenging the legality of the said order of the Tribunal in O.J.C. No. 710 of 1986. The Headmaster on the other hand, has approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 249 of 1985 for implementation of the direction of the Tribunal. Thus, the fate of the Headmaster 's petition very much depends upon the decision in the Managing Committee 's writ application.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Managing Committee (Petitioner No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 710 of 1986) the Headmaster while was working as the Headmaster misbehaved with a girl student for which the Managing Committee was contemplating to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. At that point of time the Head master himself tendered resignation on 21 -5 -1983 which was duly accepted by the Managing Committee on 22 -5 -1983. The Headmaster wanted to -withdraw his earlier resignation on 25 -5 -1983 by which time the resignation had already been accepted Therefore, the Headmaster approached the Tribunal on 27 -5 -1983 preferring an appeal which was Appeal Case No. 10 of 1983. He again filed another appeal on 25 -7 -1983. The earlier appeal filed by the Headmaster on 27 -5 -1983 (Appeal Case No. 10 of 1983) was dismissed for non -prosecution on 29 -7 -1983, but the latter appeal (Appeal Case No., 14 of 1983) was entertained and on 18 -5 -1984, the Managing Committee was directed to produce the relevant documents as ordered by the Tribunal on 4 -5 -1984. The direction stipulated that the documents should be produced on 2 -6 -1984. On 2 -6 -1984, the counsel appearing for the Managing Committee was present in the Tribunal and filed the necessary documents. After the counsel left the place the Tribunal passed an order that the appeal be posted to 23 -6.1984 for hearing at 11.00 a. m. and parties should be informed accordingly. Notwithstanding the said order, the Managing Committee was not informed nor even the counsel appearing for the Managing Committee was informed. On 23 -6 -1984 the Managing Committee was not represented and was accordingly set ex parte and the matter was posted for hearing to 3 -7 -1984. On 3 -7 -1984 the appeal was heard ex parte and judgment was reserved on 17 -7 -1984. On 10 -7 -1984, the counsel appearing for the Managing Committee came to know that the Managing Committee had been set ex parte and the appeal had been heard. He, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal praying that the Managing Committee be given a chance of hearing. This application was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 26 -9 -1984. Ex parte judgment of the Tribunal was passed on 5 -11 -1984 which is being impugned in the present case, After the ex parte judgment against the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee filed an application purported to be one under Rules 13 and 26 of the Orissa Education (Tribunal) Rules, 1977, for setting aside the ex parte judgment which was numbered as M. J. C. No. 8 of 1984. This M.J. C. was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 17 -12 -1985.

(3.) THERE cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the Tribunal while disposing of an appeal exercises a quasi -judicial jurisdiction and is bound to follow the principles of natural justice. One of the essential requirements of such principle is that the parties must now the date of hearing. On 2 -6 -1984 the Tribunal fixed the appeal to 23 -6 -1984 and directed that the parties be informed. There is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the Managing Committee was informed in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal dated 2.6 -1984. We have perused ourselves the records of the Tribunal. Neither there 15 any endorsement in the order -sheet on 2 -6 -1984 to the effect that the notice has been issued not is there any endorsement in the order -sheet subsequently indicating that the notices have been duly issued. A copy of the notice fixing the hearing to 23 -6 -1984 addressed to the Managing Committee is therein record and on the back of the same there is no endorsement that the same has been served on the Managing Committee. Then again, while the Managing Committee has categorically asserted in the present writ application that no notice has been served on the Petitioner or the counsel informing that the appeal would be heard on 23 -6 -1984, there has been no denial of the same by the Headmaster -opposite party No. 1 nor the Tribunal who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 3 and for whom the learned Additional Standing Counsel appears, has made any return. In that view of the matter, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal dated 2 -6 -1984 fixing the hearing of the appeal to ?3 -6 -1984 and directing that the parties be e informed was not notified to the Managing Committee or its counsel and consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 23 -6 -1984 making the Petitioner -Managing Committee ex parte in the proceeding and the hearing of the appeal ex parte on 3 -7 -1984 must be held to be illegal, inoperative and void, since the principles of natural justice have been fully violated. Consequently, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 5 -11 -1984 (Annexure -I) must beheld to be illegal and inoperative and cannot be sustained. We would accordingly quash the judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 14 of 1983, annexed, as Annexure -1 to the writ application.