The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 17881 of 2016 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Sangram Biswal ...… Petitioner --------------- -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. T.Nanda, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate for State Mrs. J.R.Tripathy, Special counsel for MGNREGS _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 8th December, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the Page 1 of 8 facts sated in the writ petition, admit the same, issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause:- i) Why the petitioner shall not be engaged as Gram Rozagar Sevak (GRS) of Uparjhar G.P under Deogaon Block in the district of Bolangir. If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule may kindly be made absolute. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper; And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 2. The petitioner’s case is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.10.2015 issued for engagement of Gram Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) in different Gram Panchayats of Bolangir district, he submitted his application. In the selection process, he was placed at the second position with one Padmanabha Padhan
Facts
securing the first position. For some reason, said Padmanabha Padhan did not join. The petitioner being placed at Sl. No.2 in the merit list, expected to be engaged. Accordingly, he submitted a representation addressed to the then PD, DRDA, Bolangir. Since no action was taken, he has approached this Court seeking the relief as already quoted hereinbefore. Page 2 of 8 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the BDO (Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 4) inter alia stating that as per the terms of the advertisement dated 19.10.2015, the petitioner having been engaged as GRS earlier was disengaged on the grounds of poor performance/lapses in MGNREGS work. As such, he cannot be considered for fresh engagement. 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder seeking to
Legal Reasoning
before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 11190 of 2013 but the same was dismissed. The petitioner carried appeal to the Division Bench in W.A. No.389 of 2014, which also came to be dismissed. Thus, the order of disengagement passed earlier against him has attained finality. 8. Mrs. J.R.Tripathy, learned Special counsel for MGNREGS adopts the arguments made by Mr. Pattnaik, Page 4 of 8 and additionally submits that the petitioner’s performance in MGNREGS work being poor he was rightly disengaged and therefore, cannot be considered for engagement as per the advertisement under Annexure-1. 9. Perusal of the advertisement dated 19.10.2015 would reveal that the selection criteria is mentioned as follows: Age Between 18 to 40 years as on 01.10.2015 Educational qualification Selection Criteria 10+2 pass and preference will be given to Commerce stream Having Computer proficiency of “O” level with use of Odia language in Computer. a)Selection will be made purely on the basis of % of marks of 10+2 b)The candidates shall be the permanent resident of the gram Panchayat for which they apply. c)If no Candidate is available in that particular Gram Panchayats will be considered. Candidates engaged earlier but subsequently disengaged/removed on the ground of misconduct/poor performance etc. are not eligible. Remuneration a)Consolidated remuneration of Rs.3500/-(Rupees Three Thousand F Five Hundred) only per month. b) No other allowances is admissible. (Emphasis Added) 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, unless there is proof of disengagement due to misconduct/poor performance, the candidature cannot be rejected. Page 5 of 8 11. In order to appreciate the contentions as above, this Court has perused the previous order of disengagement dated 27.04.2013, which has already attained finality. It is seen that the petitioner was disengaged on the basis of an inquiry report, where it was established that he had connived with ill-intention and violated the various provisions of MGNREGS. The words, ‘misconduct’ or ‘poor performance’ in MGNREGS work is not specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, there can be no other interpretation made to the grounds cited in the order of disengagement than the fact that the petitioner was in fact disengaged because of misconduct in his work. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ex-Constable Ram Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 54 has interpreted the meaning of the word, ‘Misconduct’ as follows: the context, it could be seen that the word “6. Thus ‘misconduct’ though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation its from performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, improper or wrong in behaviour; unlawful behaviour, wilful character; forbidden act, a transgression of the delinquency it must be in Page 6 of 8 Its ambit has established and definite rule of action or code of judgment, conduct but not mere error of carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.” 12. Since the order has attained finality, this Court [Emphasis Added] would not offer any comments on the same but fact remains that the petitioner was held to have violated various provisions of MGNREGS work which by itself is a misconduct. Therefore, notwithstanding the language used in the order of disengagement, the claim of the petitioner that it would not amount to misconduct/poor performance is unacceptable. 13. From what has been narrated above, it is clear that the previous order of disengagement brings the case of the petitioner within the mischief of the selection criteria referred above at Sl. No.(c). 14. For the foregoing discussions therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions advanced and Page 7 of 8 holds that the candidature of the petitioner was rightly not considered. The writ application being thus found to be devoid of merit is therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 10-Dec-2025 19:06:48 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
rebut the contention of the State by submitting that the disengagement of the petitioner earlier cannot be treated as misconduct so as to attract the mischief of the relevant selection criteria mentioned in the advertisement. 5. Heard Mr. T. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the State and Mrs. J.R.Tripathy, learned Special counsel for MGNREGS. 6. Mr. Nanda draws attention of this Court to the advertisement dated 19.10.2015 and in particular, to the selection criteria mentioned under Clause-(c). He Page 3 of 8 submits that only if a candidate’s previous employment is found to have been disengaged on the ground of misconduct/poor performance then only he would not be eligible. But in the instant case, the order dated 27.04.2013 passed by the PD, DRDA, Bolangir disengaging the petitioner as GRS of Uparjhar Gram Panchayat is not due to any proven misconduct. As such, the petitioner’s case cannot be brought within the purview of the selection criteria mentioned above. 7. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA would submit that the earlier disengagement of the petitioner was on the ground of poor performance in MGNREGS work. The order of disengagement was challenged by the petitioner