The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Smita Mohanty .…… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. B.Routray, Sr.Advocate Mr. A.Tripathy, Advocate Mr. N.Dadhichi, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. G.Tripathy, AGA for O.P.1-State Mr. P.K.Mohanty, Sr.Advocate for O.P.2 & 3 CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 1st August 2025 B.P. Routray,J. 1.
Legal Reasoning
holding the required qualification for the post, this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11811 of 2021 dated 5th November 2024 (Deep Ray v. State of Odisha & Ors.), taking note of aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed that:- 15. when admittedly the Petitioner was continuing in the post of Assistant Director (Planning) for last 17 years without having any fault on his part or blemish from the authority, directing for his termination holding him disqualified for the post is completely unjust and unfair. It is the Opposite Party who invited the Petitioner and selected him for the post on merit in a due process of selection. The same authority directing his termination for not having the requisite qualification after his uninterrupted continuance of 17 years is thus found illegal. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination of the Petitioner from the post of Assistant Director (Planning) is set aside and the Opposite Parties are directed to allow the Petitioner to continue in the post of Assistant Director (Planning) in terms of his earlier appointment order dated 1st November 2004 under Annexure-4. 11. In the instant case, it is not the fault on the part of the Petitioner that she did not had the qualification to hold the post nor any flaw or misrepresentation is found on her part that she produced any fake certificate or suppressed any fact before the employer at the time of her initial appointment. It remains undisputed that whatever qualification she had at the time of selection, she produced the same W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 8 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 honestly before the authority and upon verification of such certificates produced by the Petitioner and keeping in view her performance in the interview she was selected for the post. Neither in the interview nor during verification of her certificates post interview, anything to disqualify the Petitioner for the post was noticed by the employer. On the other hand, during her discharge the duty in the post her work and dedication to the work was appreciated by the authorities number of times. Therefore, without any fault on the part of the Petitioner and after lapse of 17 years, the action of the Opposite Party to hold her disqualified for the post on the ground of lack in educational qualification is found completely illegal and unfair. 12.
Arguments
Heard Mr. B.Routray and Mr. P.K.Mohanty, learned Sr.Counsels for respective parties and Mr. G.Tripathy, learned AGA for State-Opposite Party No.1. 2. The Petitioner who is initially appointed as Computer Programmer vide engagement order dated 23rd June 2002 under Annexure-5 and joined on 1st July 2002 has been terminated from W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 1 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 service as per the order passed under Annexure-1 dated 26th February 2021 on the ground of lack of requisite qualification. 3. The Petitioner appeared the walk-in-interview as per advertisement under Annexure-3 and she was selected as the Programmer on 1st July 2002. She discharged her duty satisfactorily and her service book was opened under Annexure-8. At the time of selection and as recorded in the service book, she had qualification of Diploma with Post-Diploma with Computer Integrated M.A. in P.R. Needless to mention here that the contract of engagement of the Petitioner was continued from time to time till the date of her disengagement on 26th February 2021 as per the impugned order. to 26th February 2021, she continued From 1st July 2002 uninterruptedly as her engagement was extended from time to time and in the meantime, her performance being found more than satisfactory, several certificates of appreciation was issued in her favour as per Annexure-14 series. 4. On 16th December 2019 while the Petitioner was continuing as such, an explanation was sought for regarding disparities found during verification of the certificates/ documents submitted by her at the time of initial appointment. The show-cause notice was issued on 16th December 2019 as per Annexure-10 and the Petitioner submitted her reply to the same stating that whatever qualifications she had at the time of initial appointment and the certificates in that regard has been submitted by her at that time for verification. But upon consideration of her show-cause reply the authorities finding her explanation unsatisfactory on the ground that the PDCA certificate W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 submitted by her is not equivalent to PGDCA and there is no degree certificate in her favour, as required for her engagement at the time of selection to the post of Computer Programmer. The authorities thus held that the Petitioner is not entitled and eligible for the post of Computer Programmer for having not possessed the requisite qualification and as a result of the same, her appointment in the post of Computer Programmer was terminated with effect from 26th February 2021. At the same time, she has been re-engaged in the post of Data Entry Operator considering the fact that her qualification is suitable for such post. 5. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel submits on behalf of the Petitioner that it is not correct to opine that the Petitioner did not have requisite qualification at the time of her selection to the post of Computer Programmer as she along with Diploma qualification had ten years experience in the field to be treated equivalent as degree qualification. It is further submitted that the Petitioner being allowed to continue in the post for more than 17 years with unblemished career, rather her service being appreciated by the higher authorities, it is illegal on the part of the employer to rise after 17 years to treat the petitioner disqualified to hold such post of Computer Programmer. 6. Conversely, it is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Opposite Parties 2 & 3, the employer, that when the candidate is found upon verification that she is lacking requisite educational qualification to hold the post and she was given opportunity of hearing before her termination from the post, no right is accrued on behalf of the Petitioner to continue in such post W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 3 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 particularly without having the requisite qualification. It is also submitted that, what is contended by the Petitioner that her qualification is equivalent to degree including her experience of ten years is an incorrect fact. 7. In view of such rival submissions advanced by the parties, it needs to peruse the qualification required by the authority at the time of appointment to the post. As per the advertisement under Annexure-3 the minimum qualification for the post of Computer Programmer on consultancy basis is prescribed as 1st class degree from a recognized university with 1st class PGDCA from a recognized institution along with three years experience. It is also desired that the candidate should have sound knowledge in DBMS/ Web Technology. The remuneration prescribed for the post was consolidated amount of Rs.5000/- per month. 8. It is true that the Petitioner appeared in the interview with all her certificates and educational qualifications and was selected for the post to be appointed as Computer Programmer and consequently she was directed to furnish the contract (TOR) for consultant in the post. According to the Petitioner she had the qualification of 1st class Masters Degree in public relation and also 1st class Diploma in Electronics and Tele-communication Engineering with ten years technical experience and 1st class PDCA. This fact of having such qualification on the part of the Petitioner is never disputed by the Opposite Party-employer. The Petitioner was selected and allowed to continue in the post till the year 2019 when she was asked to submit show-cause with regard to disparity in the educational qualification W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 4 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 (Annexure-10). It is not the case of the employer that the Petitioner has done anything to misrepresent her qualification for the post nor it is the case of the Opposite Party-employer that the Petitioner had mislead the employer by producing any fake certificate of educational qualification. It is found undisputed on record that whatever qualification the Petitioner had at the time of application and selection, based on the same she was selected for the post in the interview and allowed to continue in service. Moreover, her discharge of duty in the post has been found more than satisfactory and several letters of appreciation has been issued by the authority in her favour appreciating her service and the quality of her dedication in discharging such service on her part. So the question now arose that whether the Petitioner can be terminated from the post after 17 years on the ground that the qualification she submitted at the time of selection was not according to the requirement for the post. 9. It is true that the qualification of the Petitioner to hold the post was never a subject matter of question at any point of time for the entire period for 17 years till the authorities all of sudden have decided to asked for a show-cause from her. The participation of the Petitioner in the interview without being questioned about her disqualification, if any, to appear for the post was never a ground of consideration to treat her disqualified. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.M.S. Mudhol & Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 591, have observed that:- “6. Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 5 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, in spite of placing all his cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be inequitous to make him suffer for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same. 7. Whatever may be the reasons which were responsible for the non-discovery of the want of qualifications of the 1st respondent for a long time, the fact remains that the court was moved in the matter after a long lapse of about 9 years. Further, in Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 424, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:- 11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the writ petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the writ petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the writ petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the writ petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case3, where this Court considered that the appellants therein were appointed due to W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 6 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 therein, an error committed by the respondents in the matter of valuation of there was no allegation of fraud or answer scripts. As misrepresentation committed by the the appellants termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the writ petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case3, we are in agreement with the High Court that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of contempt, the writ petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present. In Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh., (2013) 14 SCC 494, it has been observed that, 27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service. 28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Aug-2025 16:48:34 any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 10. In a similar case involving the similar issue that a candidate was terminated after 17 years from the date of his appointment for not
Decision
In the result, the impugned order dated 26th February 2021 under Annexure-1 is quashed and Opposite Party authorities are directed to allow her to continue in the post of Computer Programmer as she was appointed to, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as above. Judge (B.P. Routray) S.Das,Sr.Steno W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021 Page 9 of 9