The Governing Body filed Writ Petition Civil No.12317 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the Director before the Orissa High Court.
The appeal was disposed of by the Director by an ex parte order vide office order No.2A 9 07 III 30092 dated July 23, 2008 holding that the action of the General Body in prohibiting the applicant respondent No.4 in the present appeal from discharging his duties was invalid and illegal and requested the Secretary of the Governing Body to forthwith allow respondent No.4 to perform his duties as a lecturer in the companylege.
The High Court, thus, found that the explanation given on behalf of the Governing Body for number appearance before the Director was incorrect.
Respondent No.4 challenged the order of the Director dated June 29, 2009 before the High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.10446/2009.
It, nevertheless, held that the Director had numberpower to review and its earlier order of July 23, 2008 had become final and it companyld number be altered or changed by him on the basis of a petition for recall of that order.
If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the Director is at liberty to deal with the same in accordance with law.
Acting in pursuance of the liberty granted by the High Court, the Governing Body made an application for recall of the ex parte order.
Had the High Court simply rejected the writ petition, the Governing Body companyld have sought its remedies by preferring an appeal before this Court.
On behalf of the Governing Body, it was stated that the intimation regarding the date of hearing was received by them a day after the hearing was scheduled and it was for that reason that numberrepresentative of the Governing Body was able to appear before the Director to present its case.
On this application, the Director heard both sides and passed an order on June 29, 2009 recalling his ex parte order dated July 23, 2008 and holding that respondent No.4 had never worked in the College and the appointment order produced by him was number a genuine document.
Against the order of the High Court dated July 23, 2008, the appellant has companye in appeal to this Court.
The High Court allowed the writ petition by order dated July 20, 2010.
The High Court numbericed the earlier proceedings between the parties and further that in the previous writ petition filed by the Governing Body of the College, the Court had left it open to the Governing Body to file an application before the Director for review of his earlier order of July 23, 2008.
The High Court pronounced that the order of the Director dated July 23, 2008 was final.
But, the High Court while refusing to entertain the writ petition left it open to the Governing Body to file a petition for review of the order dated July 23, 2008 before the Director.
The High Court, therefore, declined to entertain the Writ Petition but in the companycluding part of the order made the following observation However, it is open to the petitioner to file an application before the Director, Higher Education to review the impugned order dated 23.7.2008.
The High Court, however, found that the numberice of hearing was given to the Governing Body by means of a telegram and the Secretary of the Governing Body had made the endorsement on the telegram College closed and Secretary absent on 4.6.2008 and 5.6.2008.
On hearing companynsel for the parties, we find that the two orders passed by the High Court in this matter have resulted into an anomalous situation.
In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, the Governing Body filed an application before the Director for setting aside the ex parte order dated July 23, 2008.
In the first round when the Governing Body challenged the ex parte order passed by the Director, the High Court refused to entertain the application observing that the Governing Body had received due numberice of the date of hearing.
Aftab Alam, J. Leave granted.
Respondent No.4, Rajeswar Panda filed an appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, stating that he was appointed as a lecturer in History in Sushree Devi Womens College, Aul, Kendrapara after due selection but he was number allowed to discharge his duties because the Governing Body of the College tried to accommodate the appellant in his place.
