The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 08. . IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No.1312 of 2016 Hemakanta Bhoi .… Petitioner Represented by
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.R. Sundaray, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -Versus- .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 02.09.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.08.2015 of the District Welfare Officer, Bargarh whereby his contract engagement as Cook-cum-Attendant (CCA) in Ashram School of Bargarh district was terminated. 3. The facts of the case are that by following the norms laid down in the Government Order No.9998/SSD dated 14.02.2006 of the Government in department of SC and ST Development, the petitioner was engaged as CCA on certain terms and conditions. It was stipulated that the engagement may be renewed on 1st of March every year based on performance appraisal. 4. The petitioner was initially engaged at Jhitiki Ashram School in Bargarh district. While continuing as such, the contract was renewed on yearly basis. On 20.07.2015, a show cause notice was issued to him by the District Welfare Officer referring to several Page 1 of 4 Government letters and stating that his engagement was in violation of the said guidelines as he does not belong to the ST community. The petitioner submitted his reply on 06.08.2015 inter alia, stating that in the Government order dated 14.02.2006 there is no such restriction regarding engagement of persons belonging to other communities. However, by the order impugned, the District Welfare Officer held that the engagement of the petitioner was not as per the Government guidelines and accordingly terminated the contractual engagement. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1312(C) of 2016, which has since been transferred to this Court and registered as WPC (OAC) No.1312 of 2016. The petitioner has sought for the following relief:- “7. In view of the facts stated above in paragraph-6, the applicant prays for the following relief:- i)The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly allow this application thereby setting aside the disengagement order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the District Welfare officer, Bargarh as per the order of the Collector, Bargarh. ii)This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue in his service in the post of Cook-cum-Attendant in Jhitiki Ashram School pending disposal of this application. iii)Further this Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. And this act of kindness, the applicant shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-respondent inter alia, admitting the engagement of the petitioner and by stating that the petitioner’s contract engagement not being in terms of the guidelines communicated by the SC and ST Department, he was rightly disengaged. Page 2 of 4 7. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder reiterating the stand taken by him in his reply to the show cause notice. 8. Heard Mr. D.R. Sundaray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned AGA for the State. 9. Mr. Sundaray draws attention of this Court to the Government order dated 14.02.2006 to submit that there is nothing therein to hold that only persons from the ST Community can be engaged as CCA. Therefore, reference to the said Government order in the impugned order is untenable. Mr. Sundaray further submits that persons belonging to the OBC Community like the petitioner are still continuing as CCA in different Ashram Schools. 10. Mr. Patnaik, on the other hand submits that in the letter dated 07.04.2007 of the Government in SC and ST Development Department, there is a clear instruction that Lady CCAs shall be engaged preferably from ST Community. The petitioner admittedly belongs to the OBC and therefore, is primarily not eligible for being engaged. 11. Having heard the rival contentions, this Court deems it proper to refer to the impugned order at the first instance, wherein the reference has been made to some Government resolutions/letters namely, Letter No.9998/SSD dated 14.02.2006, Letter No.13363/SSD dated 07.04.2007, Letter No.15086/SSD dated 09.05.2011 and Letter No.8055/SSD dated 19.02.2013. 12. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s engagement was on 29.09.2010, it goes without saying that the letters dated 09.05.2011 and 19.02.2013 would have no application. As regards the letter dated 07.04.2007, this Court finds that the same relates to Lady Cook-cum-Attendants to be engaged in ST Girls Hostel. The petitioner’s engagement was not in any such hostel. In so far as Letter No.14.02.2006 is concerned, the same simply mentions the Page 3 of 4 consolidated wages of the CCA and refers to the modality of their engagement. It does not whisper a word with regard to the community to which the CCA must belong as being an eligibility condition. 13. It is thus evident that, the impugned order was passed on an misreading of the Government letter dated 14.02.2006 and therefore, cannot be sustained. It is stated at the bar that the engagement of the petitioner was on the basis of a contract for one year, with provision for renewal each year depending on the performance. 14. It goes without saying that no mandamus can be issued to ‘reinstate the petitioner in his former contractual engagement’. However, considering the fact that the petitioner’s contract engagement was wrongfully terminated and there is nothing adverse with regard to his performance placed before this Court, necessary directions can be issued to the authorities to consider his case for renewal of contract, at least prospectively. 15. The writ application is therefore, disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of his contract in terms of the earlier norms as applicable to him at the time of his initial engagement. A decision in this regard shall be taken within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Judge (Sashikanta Mishra) Puspanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 04-Sep-2025 18:11:38 Page 4 of 4