Orissa High Court
Kalpana Khosla vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 16 May, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 4556 of 2024
(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India)
---------------
Kalpana Khosla ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Mishra, B.R. Tripathy
and B.P. Pradhan, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
___________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
16th May, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.02.2023, as at Annexure-9, passed by the Collector, Koraput in rejecting her representation, and the order dated 11.03.2020, as at Annexure-10, passed by the District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Koraput in disengaging her from the post of Sikshya Sahayak with effect from 01.08.2015. Page 1 of 13
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was engaged as Sikshya Sahayak in Kanimusa Primary School, Laxmipur in the district of Koraput, vide order dated 22.12.2011, after undergoing a process of selection. As she was untrained, she sought permission from the competent authority to undertake B.Ed. course as a regular student from KSUB, CTE, Bhanjanagar. The District Project Co-ordinator, Koraput, vide order dated 09.12.2014, granted her such permission. After completion of the training course, the petitioner joined in her duty on 07.09.2015 and the same was accepted by the authority. However, because of her illness, she availed medical leave from 08.09.2015 to 31.03.2016. Again, she joined on 01.04.2016, but availed maternity leave from 02.04.2016 to 28.09.2016, during which she delivered a male child on 23.06.2016. Because of certain complications, she had to extend her medical leave till 17.04.2018. She claims to have submitted leave applications along with joining reports supported by medical certificates to the authorities, which were forwarded by the Block Education Officer to the District Project Coordinator for acceptance. Since no action was taken Page 2 of 13 regarding acceptance of the joining of the petitioner, she approached the Collector by submitting a representation, which was forwarded vide letter dated 17.10.2019, to the District Education Officer, who, in turn, transmitted the same to the District Project Coordinator. When no action was taken by the authorities, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) No. 34459 of 2022. This Court, by order dated 02.01.2023, directed the Collector to consider the case of the petitioner as per her representation. By order dated 24.02.2023, the Collector rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she had joined the B.Ed. training, without prior permission of the competent authority, on 29.11.2014 at KCUB, Bhanjanagar. Moreover, she had already been disengaged vide order dated 11.03.2020. According to the petitioner, said order of disengagement was never communicated to her. On such facts, the petitioner has filed this writ application seeking the following relief:-
"Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dtd. 24.02.2023 under annexure-9 and order dtd. 11.03.2020 under annexure- 10 and direct the opposite parties to reengage the petitioner in her former post and grant her all consequential service and financial benefits;Page 3 of 13
And pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper;"
3. The stand of the State-opposite parties, as per the counter filed in the case, is that the petitioner was permitted to take admission in B.Ed. course at KSUB, Keonjhar, vide letter dated 09.12.2014 of the District Project Office, RTE-SSA, Koraput. Instead, she joined at KSUB, Bhanjanagar by tampering with the permission letter. She was permitted till 31.03.2015, but she remained unauthorizedly absent from 01.08.2015 to 06.09.2015 without prior permission of the competent authority, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by her at the time of engagement. She submitted a bunch of joining report, leave applications to the Block Education Officer. However, as per Government Resolution No. 587/SME dated 10.01.2011, a Sikshya Sahayak engaged on annual contractual basis is eligible for Casual Leave (CL) of 12 days during a calendar year. The petitioner failed to execute the annual contractual agreement for the academic year 2016-17 onwards after completing her term of engagement on 31.03.2016. Her Page 4 of 13 representation dated 27.10.2020 was considered along with the terms and conditions of her engagement and she was disengaged from her post of Junior Teacher (Contractual) by order dated 11.03.2020. The District Project Coordinator was instructed to serve the order dated 11.03.2020 on the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has tried to cover up her unauthorized absence by producing medical certificates, but in absence of any provision of availing leave beyond a particular period, such period cannot be regularized in any manner.
4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder seeking to refute the stand taken by the State in its counter by reiterating the averments made in the writ application. It is stated that after being granted permission to appear in the B.Ed. course from KSUB, CTE, Keonjhar, when she went for admission, she did not find any such institution in Keonjhar. She, therefore, approached the District Project Coordinator, who corrected the place as Bhanjanagar instead of Keonjhar. She, thereafter, took admission in the B.Ed. course, being allowed by the College authorities, on production of the permission letter, after Page 5 of 13 verification from the District Project Coordinator. It is also stated that she never remained unauthorizedly absent, but because of circumstances beyond her control, which is supported by medical certificates, she sought for leave on different occasions, which were also forwarded for acceptance.
5. Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.
6. Shri Mishra would argue that the ground taken by the Collector to reject the petitioner's representation that she had joined the B.Ed. training course without prior permission of the competent authority is factually incorrect, as she had been duly permitted to do so. As regards the stand taken that she was permitted to undergo the course at Keonjhar, Shri Mishra would argue that on inquiry by the petitioner it was found that no such institution named KSUB exists at Keonjhar, but such institution exists at Bhanjanagar. It cannot therefore be held that the petitioner committed any illegality in undergoing the course at Bhanjanagar instead of Keonjhar. Page 6 of 13 Moreover, she had obtained necessary permission in this regard also, as the District Project Coordinator had corrected the place of the institution in the permission letter, considering which the institution accepted her as a regular student. Shri Mishra, further argues that as regards the order of disengagement dated 11.03.2020, the same was never served upon the petitioner at any point of time, but was attached with the order of rejection of her representation. The order of disengagement, therefore, has no force. It is also argued that the petitioner had to remain absent under compelling circumstances and she did so by submitting leave applications supported by medical documents on every occasion. So, it cannot be treated as unauthorized absence of the petitioner.
7. Shri S.N. Patnaik, learned State Counsel would argue that there is no proof that the letter granting permission was ever corrected. Since the petitioner was specifically permitted to undergo B.Ed. training from the institution at Keonjhar, she could not have unilaterally taken a decision to do so at another institution. Shri Patnaik further argues that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent continuously and Page 7 of 13 though she submitted some leave applications, the same could not have been considered having regard to the terms and conditions of her engagement, which provides for only 12 days CL in a calendar year. Her representation was, therefore, rightly rejected and she was disengaged from service.
8. The first question that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner had undergone B.Ed. training without permission of the competent authority. In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to the copy of the letter dated 09.12.2014 of the District Project Coordinator, Koraput, whereby she was permitted to appear in the B.Ed. course institutionally in KSUB, Keonjhar. The petitioner claims that there is no such institution at Keonjhar, but the institution having the same name situated at Bhanjanagar. The State has not disproved such contention, inasmuch as, it has not been stated that there is in fact an institution by the same name at Keonjhar. Though the petitioner claims that having come to know of the above, she got the letter of permission corrected from Keonjhar to Bhanjanagar, yet nothing has been placed on record to substantiate such stand. Nevertheless, it has not Page 8 of 13 been disputed that the petitioner did undergo the course at KSUB-CTE, Bhanjanagar. It is reasonable to suppose that the College authorities must have accepted her as a student basing on the permission granted by her competent authority. Even otherwise, Clause-13 of her engagement order requires the selected untrained candidate to acquire training qualification within a period of five years at her own cost. The factual position that emerges thus is, the petitioner duly completed her B.Ed. course and the same was with permission of the competent authority. The only discrepancy is with regard to the place of the institution. According to the considered view of this Court, the same is immaterial when it is not the case of the authorities that the course undertaken by the petitioner is not otherwise acceptable. Thus, she having acquired B.Ed. qualification and that too being permitted by the competent authority, it cannot be said that she had done so without prior permission. The finding of the Collector while rejecting her representation is, therefore, not tenable. Taking this argument forward, it can be easily held that there being no such institution at Keonjhar, it was the competent authority himself, Page 9 of 13 who has to be blamed for mentioning Keonjhar, instead of Bhanjanagar, in the permission letter in the first place. Needless to say, the petitioner cannot be taken to task for the mistake committed by the competent authority.
9. As regards the effect of non-service of the order of disengagement on the petitioner, it is seen that in the counter affidavit it has been stated under paragraph-11 that the District Project Coordinator was instructed to serve the order dated 11.03.2020 on the petitioner for her reference. Nothing has been stated as to if such order was actually served upon her or not. Surprisingly, in the same affidavit it is stated under paragraph-15 that the order was issued by the competent authority and was forwarded to the Block Education Officer for service on the petitioner. Again, nothing has been stated as to if the order was actually served upon the petitioner. Be that as it may, fact remains that the petitioner's disengagement as Sikshya Sahayak was on annual contract basis, which is required to be renewed every year. Admittedly, the contract was not renewed after 31.03.2016. Such being the case, the question of disengagement appears to be redundant. Page 10 of 13
10. Coming to the other ground cited by the Collector for rejecting the representation of the petitioner, i.e., her alleged unauthorized absence, as already stated, the petitioner, after completing her B.Ed. course, joined but availed medical and maternity leave for a fairly long period. Her leave applications, along with the joining reports, were forwarded by the Block Education Officer to the District Project Coordinator vide letter dated 28.05.2018. It has nowhere been stated by the authorities that her leave applications were forged or manufactured. A stand has been taken that a Sikshya Sahayak can avail leave up to 12 days in a calendar year. While it is true that the terms and conditions prescribe such limit, but then the same would hardly be applicable to a lady availing maternity leave, which obviously would exceed the limit of 12 days. Furthermore, the petitioner has enclosed certain medical certificates to justify her leave or absence. These aspects ought to have been considered by the Collector from a proper perspective instead of rejecting the same at the threshold. This Court need not emphasize the well-known legal principle that law cannot operate in a vacuum. If a strict Page 11 of 13 adherence of the terms and conditions regarding grant of leave to a Sikshya Sahayak would be insisted, it would lead to a situation, where a lady Sikshya Sahayak required to undergo maternity leave would lose her employment. This obviously cannot be the intent of the so called terms and conditions of engagement of Sikshya Sahayak, as it would amount to denial of the fundamental right of a person guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21.
11. From the conspectus of the analysis made above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order as at Annexure-9 passed by the Collector cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Consequently, the so called order of disengagement as at Annexure-10 issued without any proof of the same being served on the petitioner, also cannot be sustained.
12. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned orders are hereby quashed. The opposite party- authorities are directed to re-engage the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be Page 12 of 13 entitled to any financial benefit for the period during which she did not render any service to the establishment, but the same shall count notionally towards continuity of service for grant of other service benefits.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 16th of May, 2025/ G.D.Samal, JR-cum-PS. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Page 13 of 13 Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2025 12:47:28