Isabella Mariam

The Orissa High Court Division Bench of Justice Krishna Shripad Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, invoking Jeremy Bentham's words — "What is State without justice, but a band of robbers" — dismissed the State's appeal challenging the reinstatement of a Scheduled Caste teacher who was twice unlawfully removed from service on a judicial precedent that authorities themselves had previously found inapplicable to his case. The Court, noting his spotless service spanning over a decade, directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 on the State, payable if compliance was not made within eight weeks.

The respondent, a Scheduled Caste candidate, was selected for the post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 25 March 2003 issued by the Director of Elementary Education. He appeared at Serial No. 18 in the Final Select List published on 2 July 2003, was issued an appointment order on 29 November 2003, and joined duty on 11 December 2003. The selection was made under the Scheduled Caste category, for which 23 out of 146 posts were reserved.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court's Five-Year Inaction After Reserving Judgment Forces Supreme Court To Invoke Article 139A And Transfer Revisions To Itself

While in service, the Collector issued a disengagement order dated 19 July 2006 invoking a prior court judgment. Upon challenge, the matter was remanded, and the Collector thereafter issued a fresh engagement order dated 12 February 2009, specifically recording that the respondent's case was not covered by the said judgment.

Despite this finding, a show-cause notice was issued on 25 March 2013 and, during the pendency of the writ petition filed against it, the Collector issued a further disengagement order dated 27 October 2018, again invoking the same judgment previously held inapplicable. The respondent also sought regularisation of the break in service and continuity from the date of initial appointment, contending that similarly placed employees had been granted such benefit. The appellants maintained that the initial recruitment process had been judicially quashed and that the respondent's candidature fell beyond the applicable cut-off.

The Division Bench approved the Single Judge's finding that the disengagement order dated 27 October 2018 was issued without application of mind. Reproducing the Single Judge's observations with approval, the Court recorded: "This shows not only the non-application of mind of the said authority, but also shows that the authorities are playing with the judicial proceedings of this Court, which they should not have been. Such conduct of the Collector is contumacious in nature. When making a statement before this Court that they have complied the order by issuing engagement order, the contempt petition was dropped, again after 9 years 8 months they have reopened the issue arbitrarily and whimsically without taking leave of this Court. Such action of the authorities is hit by principle of estoppels."

On the appellants' contention that the respondent's candidature fell outside the earmarked quota, the Court stated that the plea was bereft of elements of justice and that it had already been examined by the Appellant-Collector himself on remand. The Court recorded that the respondent had applied in the open market, succeeded in the examination, and ranked at Serial No. 12 in the Select List, within the 15 advertised vacancies for Scheduled Caste candidates. The Single Judge's observation, affirmed by the Division Bench, stated: "Such argument of the State counsel is absurd, imaginary and has no basis in view of the fact narrated above that the petitioner's position is coming at Serial No. 12 of the select list, which is well within the 15 advertised vacancy meant for SC category candidates. Therefore, the Petitioner at no stretch can be treated to have been appointed beyond the advertised vacancy and is well within 100% advertised vacancy. Therefore, such statement is incorrect on the face of it."

On exemplary costs, the Court recorded that mindlessness and callousness on the part of the authorities was evident, and that a scrupulous member of the downtrodden community was made to spend the prime of his youth in Court corridors across multiple rounds of litigation, all of which he had won.

Also Read: 60-Day Disposal Period Under Section 12(5) DV Act May Not Be Practical But Unnecessary Adjournments Must Be Avoided: Orissa High Court

The Court directed: "This Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, with an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only. However, this cost becomes payable by the Appellant-State, if impugned order of the learned Single Judge is not implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks. Even otherwise, time for compliance is eight (8) weeks only, failing which the Appellants run the risk of contempt proceedings."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate

For the Respondent: M/s. D.N. Rath, A.K. Saa and S. Das, Advocates

Case Title: State of Odisha and Others v. Debendra Nath Malik

Case Number: W.A. No. 1825 of 2024

Bench: Justice Krishna Shripad Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash