Sarat Chandra Satapathy vs State Of Odisha And Others

The challenge in the present appeal is to both the original order dated 14th July, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition i.e. WPC (OA) No.1871 of 2017 as well as the subsequent order dated 2nd January, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant’s RVWPET No.185 of 2022.

Aggrieved by his being relieved with effect from 29th February 2016 from the post of Classical Teacher by an order dated 1st November, 2017 passed by the District Education Officer (DEO) taking his date of birth to be 1st March 1956, the Appellant filed the aforementioned petition initially before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT). After the abolition of the OAT, the said application stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as WPC (OA) No.1871 of 2017.

The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, agreed with the Appellant that the said order dated 1st November, 2017 could not have been passed by the DEO without affording the Appellant an opportunity of being heard particularly since the order was passed on the basis of a report of the Headmaster of the High School which had issued the school leaving certificate in which the date of birth of the Appellant had been indicated as 1st March, 1956 in the counterfoil but as 1st March, 1960 in the certificate itself.

The learned Single Judge has while setting aside the order dated 1st November, 2017 directed the DEO, Bhadrak Circle to give the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a fresh order. The entire exercise was asked to be completed within a period of six months. The learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Odisha v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269.

Ms. S. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the decision in Binapani Dei (supra) simply set aside the order challenged therein on the ground that it was violative of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court did not remit the matter to the authority for a fresh decision. It is accordingly contended that with the Appellant having already attained the age of superannuation even going by the date of birth as claimed by the Appellant, the remand to the authority for a fresh decision was unwarranted. She also apprehended that it might be biased against the Appellant.

The above submission has been considered by this Court and the impugned order has been carefully examined. Since the Appellant was aggrieved that the order dated 1st November, 2017 relieving him from service was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the Appellant cannot be heard to complain about an opportunity being granted to the Appellant to be heard and for a decision to be taken afresh after such hearing. The Appellant would be given a copy of the report of the Headmaster of the B.M. Bagurai High School, Bhadrak which formed the basis of the decision to relieve him from service with effect from 29th February, 2016. The Appellant cannot refuse to avail of such an opportunity as it is essential that the Appellant’s correct date of birth is ascertained. The Court, therefore, sees no prejudice being caused to the Appellant by the aforementioned directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

It is then contended that the exercise may go on indefinitely and, therefore, the Appellant may not get any real relief in the near future. The Court notes that the impugned order makes the exercise time-bound and requires it to be completed within six months. Consequently, even on that score, the Court finds no ground to interfere.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

…………………………….