The High Court
Case Details
// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33196 of 2020 Along with W.P.(C) Nos.33197,33198, 33199 & 33200 of 2020 …. Petitioner(s) Jhari Barik (in W.P.(C) No.33196 of 2020) Bijaya Kumar Sahoo (in W.P.(C) No.33197 of 2020) Meenakshi Samal (in W.P.(C) No.33198 of 2020) Rasananda Dalai (in W.P.(C) No.33199 of 2020) Kabita Swain (in W.P.(C) No.33200 of 2020)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.M. Bhuyan, Adv. -versus- The State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Adv. for O.P.3 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 24.07.2024 03. 1. These matters are taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2024 18:10:54 Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 3. The present Writ Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners with the following prayer: “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the writ application shall not be allowed and after hearing both the parties the order of rejection vide Annexure-9 and the order of termination vide Annexure-10 may be quashed. The opposite parties may be directed to the regularize the service of the petitioners within stipulated time with all consequential benefits. And may pass any appropriate order deem fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners 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 counsels for the Opposite Parties submit that they have no objection, if these matters are 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 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2024 18:10:54 // 3 // in the said judgment which was disposed of on 16.07.2024. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows. “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. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2024 18:10:54 1 (2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 16. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 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. 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 Petitioners. Accordingly, this Court quashes the order No.26943 dated 23.11.2020/Annexure-9 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Odisha and the order No.4458 dated 23.11.2020/Annexure-10 passed by the Opposite Party No.3/Director, Acharya Harihar Post Graduate Institute of Cancer Centre, Cuttack. Further, the Authorities are directed to revoke the termination of the Petitioners and re-examine the Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2024 18:10:54 // 5 // matter of regularization of their services 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. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 25-Jul-2024 18:10:54 Page 5 of 5