CYRIAC JOSEPH, T.S.THAKUR
GRIDCO Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sadananda Doloi – Respondent
What is the true nature of the respondent's appointment—regular or contractual—and is it permissible to terminate a contractual appointment under the terms of the contract? What is the scope and standard of judicial review over termination of a contractual public employment by a State instrumentality, and does Article 14 require fairness in such contractual terminations?
Key Points: - The Court determines whether the respondent’s appointment was contractual or regular and that it was contractual, with termination permissible under contract terms (!) (!) . - The appointment was governed by GRIDCO Officers Service Regulations, which for higher grades require contract-based appointments (!) (!) . - Judicial review of termination under public contract is available; review is limited to ensure not arbitrary, irrational, or unfair, but cannot substitute the decision with another view; fairness doctrine can apply to state action even in contractual contexts but not to rewrite contract terms (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that there was no unreasonableness or unfairness in the termination, and the contract terms allowed termination on three months’ notice or payment in lieu (!) (!) (!) . - The Division Bench’s view that the appointment was regular was overturned; the contract nature was affirmed (!) (!) . - The Regulations explicitly state that appointments above E-9 are contractual; extension depended on Board discretion (!) (!) . - The remedy remains in contract terms, with limited writ-review authority over administrative actions in contractual contexts (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and affirmed termination, with directions regarding salary recovery (!) .
Judgment :-
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Two questions fall for our determination in this appeal by special leave, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2008, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa whereby Writ Appeal No.11 of 2003 filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed, order dated 26th September, 2003, passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in O.J.C. No.2225 of 2001 set aside and order of termination of the services of respondent No.1. quashed.
3. The questions are:
1. What was the true nature of the appointment of the respondent? In particular, was the appointment regular or simply contractual in nature? and
2. If the appointment was contractual, was the termination thereof vitiated by any legal infirmity to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?
4. Before we advert to the questions and possible answers to the same, we may briefly set out the facts in the backdrop:
5. The appellant-Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (`GRIDCO' for short) is a company wholly owned by the Government of Orissa. By an advertisement notice dated 28th May, 1996, issued by the appellant, applications were invited from eligible candid
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.