The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1154 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Gitanjali Panigrahi Petitioner …. -versus- State o Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. B.S. Tripathy-1, Sr. Adv.,A.Tripathy, A. Sahoo, Adv. For Opp. Parties : M/s. P.K. Panda, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 15.12.2025 and Date of Judgment: 15.12.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.11.01.2021 so issued under Annexure-11, basing on the letter issued by the // 2 // Government-Opp. Party No.1 on 06.01.2021 under Annexure-12. 4.
Legal Reasoning
contended that since there is no dispute that Petitioner is continuing all through as a Contractual Staff Nurse w.e.f 23.11.2011 in terms of the order of engagement issued under Annexure-2, the same could not have been Page 4 of 18 // 5 // cancelled after extending the benefit vide order under Annexure-10 basing on the decision taken by the High Power Committee in its proceeding dt.29.06.2020 under Annexure-9, vide the impugned order under Annexure-11 relying on Annexure-12 and that too without following the principle of natural justice. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order under Annexure-11 relying on the letter issued under Annexure-12 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4.6. A further contention was also made that on the face of the interim order passed by this court on 15.1.2021 and continuance of the Petitioner as a regular Staff Nurse, salary as due and admissible was never released and accordingly Petitioner has filed I.A. No.16129 of 2023, claiming extension of the benefit of salary. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. party No.2. It is contended that since in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner only faced a walk-in-interview to get the Page 5 of 18 // 6 // benefit of appointment vide order dt.14.11.2011 under Annexure-2 and while making such selection process, provisions of ORV Act was never followed, petitioner in terms of resolution dt.17.09.2013 under Annexure-7 was not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation. 5.1. However, basing on a wrong recommendation made by the High Power Committee in its proceeding dt. 29.06.2020 under Annexure-9, Petitioner was regularised vide order dt.19.08.2020 under Annexure- 10. When the same came to the knowledge of Opp. party No.1, letter dt.06.01.2021 was issued by the Government-Opp. party No.1, directing Opp. party No.2 to cancel the order, so issued under Annexure-10. Accordingly, while cancelling the benefit so issued vide order under Annexure-10, Annexure-11 was passed on 11.01.2021. 5.2. It is contended that since Petitioner when was appointed, provisions of ORV Act was never followed and Petitioner was so appointed only by facing a walk- in interview, even though Petitioner continued as a Page 6 of 18 // 7 // Contractual Staff Nurse in the establishment of Opp. party No.2 w.e.f 23.11.2011, she is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit which was wrongly extended vide order under Annexure-10. Stand taken in Para-10 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: the regularization of services of 10. That, in reply to the averments made in Para-6 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that, the service of the petitioner was inadvertently regularized on completion of six year as per G.A. Deptt. Resolution No.26108/Gen Dtd. 17.09.2013. However, Govt. Health & F.W. Deptt., Odisha vide No.PT2-HFW-MSIII-MSNG3M-0004-2019- letter 356/H&FW Dtd.06.01.2021 instruction the that employees of Regional Spinal Injury Centre (RSIC) including the petitioner were engaged/appointed on pick and choose basis without observance of required recruitment formalities and without concurrence of Finance Department against a Centrally Sponsored Planned Scheme funded by Govt. of India and State Govt. on 90:10 basis hence could not be regularized. Thus, the impugned order of cancellation under Annexure- 11 was issued. issued 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. B.S.Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner basing on Annexure-4, made his submission contending inter alia that while providing appointment to the Petitioner vide order under Anexure-2 basing on Annexure-1 advertisement, provisions of ORV Act was duly followed Page 7 of 18 // 8 // and the same is clearly reflected in Annexur-4. It is accordingly contended that the ground taken by the State that ORV Act was not followed when Petitioner was appointed is not sustainable, in view of the decision taken by the Selection Committee in its proceeding dt.07.03.2013 under Annexure-4. 6.1. It is also contended that since Petitioner pursuant to Annexure-2 order, continued as a Contractual Staff Nurse in the establishment of Opp. party No.2, she became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation on completion of 6 years of continuous engagement and her claim was duly recommended by the High Power Committee in its proceeding dt. 29.06.2020 under Annexure-9, with extension of the benefit of regularisation vide order dt. 19.08.2020 under Annexure-10. It is also contended that once the benefit of regularisation was extended; the same could not have been withdrawn/cancelled without following the principle of natural justice. 6.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his aforesaid submission relied on the decisions of the Page 8 of 18 // 9 // Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC-597, State of Orissa vs. Binapani Das, AIR 1967 SC-1269, State Bank of India And Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1, Dushyant Mainali Vs.Diwan Singh Bora & Another, SLP (C ) No.15191 of 2022 and Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State of M.P & Others, Civil Appeal NO(s) 4806 of 2011 (2025 INSC 126). 6.3. In Menaka Gandhi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs-57, 58 and 61 has held as under:- the, test of “57. The question immediately arises : does the procedure prescribed by the Passports Act, 1967 for impounding a passport meet this requirement ? Is it ’right or fair or just’ ? The argument of the petitioner was that it is not, because it provides for impounding of a passport without affording reasonable opportunity to the holder of the passport to be heard in defence. To impound the passport of a person, said the petitioner, is a serious matter, since it prevents him from exercising his constitutional right to go abroad and such a drastic consequence cannot in fairness be visited without observing the principle of audi alteram partem. Any procedure which permits impairment of the constitutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause cannot but be condemned as unfair and unjust and hence, there is in the present case clear infringement of the requirement of Article 21. Now, it is true that there is no express provision in the Passports Act, 1967 which requires that the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication and apply the principle stated by Byles, J., in Cooper v. Wandsworth Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 Page 9 of 18 // 10 // of (1) 1978 Indian Kanoon omission January, - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/ 57 Board of Works(2). "A long course of decision---, beginning with Dr. Bentley’s case and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet-the justice of the common law will supply (2) the [1863]14C.B.N.S.180. the legislature". The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, part of the rules of natural justice. In fact, there are two main principles in which the rules of natural justice are manifested, namely, Nemo Judex in Sua Causa and audi alteram partem. We are not concerned here with the former, since there is no case of bias urged here. The question is only in regard to the right of hearing which involves the audi alteram partem rule. Can it be imported in the procedure for impounding a passport ? [1974]2S.C.R.348. justice law. Natural 58. We may commence the discussion of this question with a few general observations to emphasise the increasing importance of natural justice in the field of administrative is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with’ fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. Lord Morris of Borth- y- Gest spoke of this rule in eloquent terms in his address before the Bentham Club : "We can, I think, take pride in recent periods and in what has been done particularly in the field of administrative law by invoking and by applying these principles which we broadly classify under the designation of natural justice. Many testing problems as to their application yet remain to be solved. But I affirm that the area of administrative action is but one area in which the principles are to be deployed. Nor are they to be invoked only when procedural failures are shown. Does natural justice qualify to be described as a "majestic" conception ? I believe it does. Is it just a rhetorical but vague phrase which can be employed, when needed, to give a gloss of assurance ? I believe that it is very much more. If it can be summarised as being fair play in action-who could wish that it would ever be out of action ? It denotes that the law is not only to be guided by reason and by logic but that its purpose %, will not be fulfilled; it lacks more exalted inspiration." (Current Legal Problems, 1973, Vol. 26, p. 16) And then again, in his speech in the House of Lords in Wiseman v. Borneman(1), the learned Law Lord said in words of inspired felicity: "that the conception of natural justice should at all stages guide those who discharge judicial functions is not merely an Page 10 of 18 // 11 // acceptable but is an essential part of the philosophy of the law. We often speak of the rules of natural justice. But there is nothing rigid or mechanical about them. What they comprehend has been analysed and described in many authorities. But any analysis must bring into relief rather their spirit and their inspiration than any precision of definition or precision as to application. We do not search for prescriptions which will lay down exactly what must, in various divergent situations, be done. The principles and procedures are to be applied which, in any particular situation or set of circumstances, are right and just and fair. Natural justice, it has been said, is only "fair play in action." Nor do we wait for directions from Parliament. The common law has abundant riches : there we may find what Byles, J., called "the justice of the common law". Thus, the soul of natural justice is fair play in action’ and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world. In the United States, the right to an administrative hearing is regarded as essential requirement of fundamental fairness. And in England too it has been held that ’fair play in action’ demands that before any prejudicial or adverse action is taken against a person, he must be given an opportunity to be heard. The rule was stated by Lord Henning, M.R. in these terms in Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs(1) :-where a public officer has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it has not to be done without his being given an opportunity of being heard and of making representations on his own behalf". The same rule also prevails in other Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has even gained access to the United Nations. Vide American Journal of International Law, Vol. 67, page 479. Magarry, J., describes natural justice "as a distillate of due process of law". Vide Fontaine v. Chesterton(2). It is the quintessence of the process of justice inspired and guided by fair play in action’. If we look at the speeches of the various law Lords in Wiseman’s case, it will be seen that each one of them asked the particular circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted unfairly so that it could be said that their procedure did not match with what justice demanded", ,or, was the the procedure adopted by circumstances unfair’? The test adopted by every law Lord was whether the procedure followed was "fair in all the circumstances" and ’fair play in action’ required that an opportunity should be given to the tax payer "to see and reply to the counter-statement of the Commissioners" before reaching the conclusion that "there is a prima facie case against him." The inquiry must, therefore, always be : does fairness in action the question the Tribunal "whether ’in all in Page 11 of 18 // 12 // demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person affected?. XXX XXX XXX 61. This Court, speaking through Hegde, J., in ,I. K. Kraipak’s case quoted with approval the above passage from the judgment of Lord Parker, C.J., and proceeded to add : "The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it-Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the, application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is now questioned. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice One fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable, to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-.judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi- judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi- judicial enquiry. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala and Ors. (1969)1 S.C.R. 317 the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principles of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of the case." This view was reiterated and re-affirmed in a subsequent decision of this Court in D.F.O. South Khari v. Ram Sanehi Singh(1). The law must, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. 6.4. In State of Orissa vs. Binapani Das, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-12 has held as under:- Page 12 of 18 // 13 // “12. It is true that some preliminary enquiry was made by Dr. S, Mitra. But the report of that Enquiry Officer was never disclosed to the first respondent. ’The rafter the first respondent was required to show cause why April 16, 1907, should not be accept das the date of birth and without recording any evidence the order was passed. We think that such an enquiry and decision were contrary to the basic concept of justice and cannot have any value. It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative civil order which consequences as already stated must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were admittedly taken; the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State.” involves 6.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Agarwal in Para 41 & 42 has held as follows:- “41. In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269], a two- Judge Bench of this Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This Court further held that an administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistent with the rules of natural justice : (AIR p. 1271, para 9) “9. … The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that Page 13 of 18 // 14 // every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.” 42. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] , a seven-Judge Bench of this Court held that any person prejudicially affected by a decision of the authority entailing civil consequences must be given an opportunity of being heard. This has been reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court.” 6.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dushyant Mainali, in para-5 of the said judgment held as follows: 5. There is no necessity to reiterate that even the Courts, including a highest court of the Country, are bound by principle of natural justice. Nobody can be condemned unheard. Page 14 of 18 // 15 // 6.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnadatt Awasthy in para-68 of the said judgment held as follows: 68. The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality It safeguards against arbitrary decision- making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics. into a humane pursuit. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opp. party No.2 on 14.01.2011 under Annexure-1, Petitioner by facing due selection process was engaged as a Contractual Staff Nurse vide order dt.14.11.2011 under Annexure-2. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined in the establishment of Opp. party No.2 on 23.11.2011. 7.1. Placing reliance on the stipulation contained in Resolution dt.17.09.2013 so issued by the G.A. Deptt. under Anenxure-7 and the fact that Petitioner continued as a Contractual Staff Nurse for a period exceeding 6 years, High Power Committee in its Page 15 of 18 // 16 // proceeding dt. 29.06.2020 under Annexure-9 recommended the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation. Basing on such recommendation of the High Power Committee, Petitioner was regularised vide order dt.19.08.2020 under Annexure-10. 7.2. However, such benefit was cancelled vide the impugned order dt.11.01.2021 under Annexure-11, placing reliance on the direction issued by the Government-Opp. party No.1 in its letter dt.06.01.2021 under Anenxure-12. This Court taking into account the order of appointment issued in favour of Petitioner under Annexure-2 and the proceeding of the Selection Committee so available under Anenxure-4, is of the view that Petitioner was appointed as a Contractual Staff Nurse by facing due selection process initiated pursuant to Annexure-1 and provisions of ORV Act was adhered to. 7.3. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner continued as a Contractual Staff Nurse pursuant to order under Annexure-2 w.e.f 23.11.2011, this Court is of the view Page 16 of 18 // 17 // that Petitioner basing on the resolution issued by the G.A & P.G. Deptt. on 17.09.2013 under Annexure-7 and subsequent resolution issued on 14.1.2014 was duly recommended by the High Power Committee for her regularisation vide proceeding dt.29.06.2020 under Annexure-9. Petitioner as per the considered view of this Court was duly regularised vide order dt.19.08.2020 under Annexure-10. 7.4. Since Petitioner was duly regularised after completion of 6 years of continuous engagement as a Contractual Staff Nurse and the impugned order under Annexure-11, basing on the impugned letter under Annexure-12, has been issued without following the principle of natural justice, placing reliance on the decisions as cited supra, this Court is of the view that letter under Annexure-12 and consequential order impugned under Annexure-11 could not have been issued/passed. 7.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.11.01.2021 so issued by Opp. party No.2 under Annexure-11 and so also the Page 17 of 18 // 18 // letter issued by the Government-Opp. party No.1 on 06.01.2021 under Annexure-12. While quashing the order under Annexure-11 and the communication issued under Anenxure-12, this Court upheld the order issued in favour of the Petitioner on 19.08.2020 under Annexure-10. 7.6. While disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the order under Annexure-11 and communication issued under Annexure-12, this Court directs Opp. party No.2 to extend all the benefits as due and admissible in terms of order under Annexure- 10 in favour of the Petitioner within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Arguments
It is contended that pursuant to the Advertisement issued under Annexure-1 by Opp.Party No.2, Petitioner after coming out successful in the interview, was selected and appointed as a Staff Nurse on contractual basis vide order dt.14.11.2011 under Anenxure-2. It is contended that Petitioner was so appointed basing on the decision taken by the Government with due creation of the posts vide letter dt.25.10.2012 under Annexure-3 and proceeding of the Selection Committee held on 07.03.2013 under Annexure-4. It is further contended that in the Proceeding of the meeting under Anenxure-4, it was clearly observed that provisions of ORV Act has been followed, while recommending the names of selected candidates for their appointment against the post so advertised under Annexure-1. 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing as a contractual Staff Nurse in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2 pursuant to order dt.14.11.2011 under Anenxure-2, basing on the G.A. Department Resolution Page 2 of 18 // 3 // issued on 17.09.2013 under Annexure-7 and the decision taken by the high power Committee in its proceeding dt.29.06.2020 under Annexure-9, Petitioner vide Office order dt.19.08.2020 under Annexure-10 was regularised as a Staff Nurse in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2. 4.2. However, subsequent to such extension of the benefit of regularisation vide order under Annexure-10 and consequential joining of the Petitioner in the regular establishment, benefit of order under Annexure-10, was cancelled vide the impugned order dt.11.01.2021 under Annexure-11, basing on the letter issued by the Government-Opp. party No.1 on 06.01.2021 under Anenxure-12. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was engaged as a Contractual Staff Nurse in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2 vide order dt.14.11.2011 and she was allowed to continue without any break, in view of the resolution issued by the G.A.& P.G Department on 17.09.2013 under Annexure-17 and subsequent Page 3 of 18 // 4 // resolution issued on 14.01.2014, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation after continuing as a contractual employee for a period extending more than 6 years. 4.4. It is contended that such claim of the Petitioner in the light of the resolution issued by the G.A. Department was recommended by the High Power Committee in its proceeding dt.29.06.2020 under Annexure-9 and in the said proceeding, Petitioner was recommended to get the benefit of regularisation w.e.f 23.11.2017, her initial date of joining being 23.11.2011. Recommendation of the Committee was accepted by extending the benefit of regularisation vide Order dt.19.08.2020, under Annexure-10. 4.5. However, such benefit was cancelled vide the impugned order dt.11.01.2021 under Annexure-11 basing on the letter issued under Annexure-12. It is
Decision
7.7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 15th December, 2025 /Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2025 16:44:59 Page 18 of 18