Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.32452 of 2024 Dellep Kumar Utla ..... Petitioner Mr. N.R. Routray, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.01.2025 Order No. 1 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer. The Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for records and after hearing both the parties direct the Opp. Parties to quash the order dtd.02.11.2024 and direct the Opp. Party NO.2 to dispose of the appeal dtd.04.12.2024 under Annexure-13 on merit by condoning the delay. 4. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17.10.2022 in W.P.(C ) No.26057 of 2022, petitioner preferred the appeal before Opp. Party No.2 of the said Writ Petition with a copy on the Director, Elementary Education present Opp. Party No.2 by Speed Post on Page 2 of 3. 26.10.2022. (Postal receipt showing service of copies by Speed Post so filed by way of a memo be kept on record.) 5. It is contended that though the appeal in question was preferred within the time stipulated by this Court in its order dt.17.10.2022 in W.P.(C ) No.26057 of 2022, but Opp. Party No.2 vide the impugned order rejected the said appeal on the ground that Opp. Party No.2 since was not a party to the proceeding in W.P.(C ) No.26057 of 2022, appeal filed by the Petitioner before Opp. Party No.2 is not entertainable and Petitioner in terms of the said order is to move the Director, Secondary Education Opp. Party No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 26057 of 2022. 5.1.Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Opp. Party No.2 was wrongly described in the disposed of Writ Petition in W.P.(C ) No.26057 of 2022 as Director, Secondary Education in place of Director, Elementary Education. But the fact remains that in terms of the order passed on 17.10.2022, memorandum of appeal was not only submitted to the Director, Secondary Education, but a copy of the same was also provided to the Director, Elementary Education by Speed Post on 26.10.2022, which is not disputed. 5.2. It is contended that even though Opp. Party No.2 was wrongly described, in W.P.(C) No. 26057 of 2022, but the appeal was filed within the prescribed time period before the Opp. Party No.2. Therefore, non- entertainment of the appeal by Opp. Party No.2 on the ground indicated in the impugned order dtd. 02.11.2024 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court on 17.10.2022, in W.P.(C) No. 26057 of 2022, Opp. Party No.2 be directed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that the appeal since has been filed before an authority who is not a party to the proceeding in W.P.(C ) No.26057 of 2022, no fault can be found with the Page 3 of 3. impugned order but this Court may pass appropriate order, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made, this Court finds that challenging the order of termination, Petitioner though approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.26057 of 2022, but in the said Writ Petition, Opp. Party No.2 was wrongly described as Director, Secondary Education in place of Director, Elementary Education. But the fact remains that in terms of the said order, Petitioner submitted the appeal within the prescribed time period by Speed Post on 26.10.2022 before Opp. Party No.2- Director Secondary Education and also before the Director Elementary Education-Opp. Party No.2 in the present writ petition, which is not disputed. 7.1.In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that Opp. Party No.2 is required to consider the appeal so filed by the Petitioner by Speed Post on 26.10.2022. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.02.11.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-12. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to decide the appeal on merit by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 7.2. Since the Petitioner is a terminated employee and the appeal has been filed since 26.10.2022, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to dispose of the appeal on merit within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita