The High Court
Case Details
// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33096 of 2020 Smt. Sulachana Mishra …. Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Neelakantha Panda, Adv. -versus- The State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Adv. for O.P.2 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 16.08.2024 03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer: “It is therefore, humbly; prayed that, Your Lordship's may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition, issue Rule NISI, in nature of Writ or any other Writs, calling upon the Opp.Parties, to show cause-: 1. As to why the Order of Termination dated- 23.11.2020, shall not be quashed, declaring same as illegal? AND 2. As to why Petitioner shall not be permitted to continue in her present post of Service till her reguiarization?. As she has already rendered 13 years of interrupted credible service under contractual basis in the institution? AND 3. As to why the Petitioner shall not be avail all consequential service benefits from the date of her joining? Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2024 19:07:50 AND Page 1 of 4 ” // 2 // In the event of failure to show cause or shows insufficient causes by the Opp.Parties, the Writ Petition of the Petitioner may be allowed and said Rule NISI may be made absolute. AND May further be pleased to pass any other Order (s) / Direction (s) as this Hon'ble Court deem just, fit and Proper, to the facts and the circumstance of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.33088 of 2020 (Amita Mohapatra -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors.). Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Amita Mohapatra -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submit that he has no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Amita Mohapatra -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra). 6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Amita Mohapatra -vrs.- State of Orissa & Ors. (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was disposed of on 16.07.2024. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2024 19:07:50 “13. From the perusal of the facts and the materials on record, it is manifest that the petitioner was certainly entitled to be considered for regularization of her services. This regularization was not executed solely due to the dilatory and neglectful conduct of the opposite party. Page 2 of 4 // 3 // 14. Due to the lethargy of the opposite parties in the regularization process, the termination of the petitioner on the grounds of holding an unsanctioned post was unjust, as it was a predicament entirely of their own creation. 15. On the question of whether the termination of a contractual employment was vitiated by any legal infirmity to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Apex Court in the case of Gridco Limited and Another v. Sadananda Doloi1, has held in para 25 as under: “53. It is true that judicial review of matters that fall in the realm of contracts is also available before the superior Courts, but the scope of any such review is not all pervasive. It does not extend to the Court substituting its own view for that taken by the decision making authority. Judicial review and resultant interference is permissible where the action of the authorities is malafide, arbitrary, irrational, disproportionate or unreasonable but impermissible if the petitioners challenge is based only on the ground that the view taken by the authority may be less reasonable than what is a possible alternative. The legal position is settled that judicial review is not so much concerned with the correctness of the ultimate decision as it is with the decision making process unless of course the decision itself is so perverse or irrational or in such outrageous defiance of logic that the person taking the decision can be said to have taken leave of his senses.” 16. From the abovementioned judgment, it is apparent that merely categorizing a dispute under contractual obligations does not exonerate the State from its imperative to uphold the fundamental rights delineated in Article 14. 17. Thus, in the view of the above, the Petitioner's termination should not be justified by delayed actions and procedural infirmities, as such measures starkly contradict the principles of natural justice. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2024 19:07:50 1 (2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 16. Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 18. Hence, W.P.(C) No.33196 of 2020 is allowed and the authorities are directed to revoke the termination of the Petitioner and re-examine the matter of regularization of her service in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of this judgment/order before the concerned Authority.” 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the judgment dated 16.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.33088 of 2020, this Court is inclined to accede to the submissions of the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Court quashes the order No.4458 dated 23.11.2020/Annexure-13 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/Director, Acharya Harihar Post Graduate Institute of Cancer Centre, Cuttack. Further, the Authorities are directed to revoke the termination of the Petitioner and re-examine the matter of regularization of her service in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of this order before the concerned Authority. 8. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of being allowed. Murmu Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Aug-2024 19:07:50 Page 4 of 4