Sangram Keshari Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 4066 of 2016
Date of Decision: 23rd November, 2023

Departmental proceedings cannot continue against a delinquent after his
retirement unless specific provision in service Rules allows the same.

The petitioner, a retired Reader in English language filed the writ petition seeking to quash departmental proceeding initiated against him under Rule 22 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974.

Even though the proceeding was initiated while he was service but the same could not be finalized until his date of superannuation. Thus, it was contended on his behalf that the pending proceeding may be quashed as there is Rule available which prescribes that departmental proceeding can continue against a delinquent employee after his retirement.

The Court, after referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2101 of 1999) and Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board (Civil Appeal No. 5848-49 of 2014), held that as the proceeding against the petitioner could not be completed prior to his superannuation, the same cannot continue after his retirement in absence of any provision to that effect in the Rules.

Dharanidhar Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case Number: WPC (OAC) No. 4133 of 2013
Date of Decision: 13th December, 2023

The Court quashed the dismissal of a former Block Education Officer
who was ousted from serving without holding enquiry.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a former Block Education Officer (in-charge), who was dismissed from service by the Government subsequent to an order of suspension passed against him.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that after placing him under suspension and without initiating any proceeding whatsoever in accordance with the provisions contained under the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and without following the principle of natural justice, the petitioner was straightway dismissed from his services in exercise of the power conferred under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

The said provision provides that no person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and

given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges except where the authority is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry

After going through the materials placed by the counsel for the State, the Court was of the considered view that no overt act was done by the petitioner with regard to the alleged occurrence which led to his suspension, ultimately leading to his dismissal.

The Court further held that no cogent reason was recorded by the authority in writing as to why it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against the petitioner before dismissing him from service. Furthermore, the Court observed that no document was produced to show that the petitioner acted in dereliction of the directions issued by any of his superior authorities.

Accordingly, the order of dismissal was quashed and the opposite parties were directed to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits along with arrears of salary to the petitioner.

Baishnab Charan Prusty v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 30976 of 2020

Date of Decision: 15th December, 2023

Lecturers of College which got recognition and affiliation after the
fixed cut-off date are not eligible to get UGC scale of pay.

The petitioner got appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry (1st Post) on 24.08.1989 and joined as the same in Kishorenagar College, Kishorenagar on 01.09.1989. His service was confirmed on 24.11.1998 by the Government. He claimed to be covered under the UGC scale of pay, which was denied to him by the Government.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that he became eligible to receive the UGC scale of pay from 01.09.1989 as per the resolutions issued by the UGC. However, it was contended on behalf the State that the College, where the petitioner was posted as a lecturer, got temporary recognition from the Department of Higher Education only on 01.05.1995 and was granted affiliation from the Utkal University only in 1996.

Therefore, in view of the dates of joining of the petitioner, recognition from the Higher Education Department and affiliation from the University, it was submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to claim the UGC scale of pay as the cut-off date for getting the enhanced pay was fixed to 01.04.1989.

The State further contended that though one of the claimants like the petitioner got relief from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was granted UGC scale of pay but the same cannot be claimed by the petitioner in view of the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was held that a wrong order/ decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of such wrong order.

The Court accepted the above argument made on behalf of the State. Further, the petitioner though sought to challenge fixation of the cut off date as 01.04.1989, the same was rejected by the Court taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha & Anr. v. Aswini Kumar Das & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 613 wherein it was held that there is no illegality and arbitrariness in fixation of the said day as the cut-off date.

Dr. Smita Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case Number: WPC (OAC) No. 1184 of 2019
Date of Decision: 21st December, 2023

Qualification/experience obtained after submission of application cannot
be taken into account for appointment to Government posts.

The petitioner challenged the appointment of Opposite Party No.3 against the post of Assistant Professor, Anatomy on the ground that the latter did not have the required three years of experience as a Senior Resident or as a Tutor on the date of submission of application. She further urged the Court to direct the Odisha Public Service Commission to issue appointment letter in her favour for selection in the post.

It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that she had acquired a Post Graduate degree after her MBBS, however, the Opposite Party No.3 had only an M.Sc. It was her further argument that when she had higher qualification, she should have been preferred over the Opposite Party No.3.

On a previous date, it was brought before the notice of the Court that though initially the Commission had decided to evaluate the candidate by taking into account their marks in 12th, MBBS and PG, but subsequently, after the closure of application, the Commission decided to exclude the marks of PG from consideration.

The Court had ordered the counsel appearing for the Commission to obtain instruction as to why such a decision was subsequently taken. The Court was informed that as many of the candidates, who had applied for the said post, were not allotted marks in their PG certificates and merely were declared as ‘pass’, the Commission was constrained to keep the marks obtained by candidates out of consideration for selection to the post.

The Court, at the outset, held that the Commission erred in allowing the Opposite Party No.3 for sitting in the selection process as her application was incomplete as she did not annex her experience certificate during submission of her application, which was submitted only during the document verification.

Further, it was held that the decision, by which the marks obtained in PG by the candidates was taken out of consideration, was not made by the Commission rather by a single member of the Commission. Hence, it held that the Commission should not have excluded the weightage of marks obtained in the PG degree while evaluating the merits of candidates for the advertised post.

Accordingly, the appointment of Opposite Party No.3 was quashed and the Commission was directed to evaluate the merit of all the candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them in 12th, MBBS as well as in PG and to prepare a fresh merit list.