IMPORTANT POINT
Termination – Finding of guilt which is at variance with original charge without proper opportunity to respond offends due process and renders any order or action unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEALS

1. The lead appeal¹[Civil Appeal No. 11748 of 2025] challenges the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2021 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 83 of 2019, whereby the High Court allowed the intra-court appeal filed by the respondents. Relying upon the said judgment, the High Court later allowed two other intra-court appeals of the respondents, viz. L.P.A. No. 332 of 2021 and L.P.A. No. 331 of 2021, by two separate judgments of the same date, i.e., 20th December, 2022. These latter judgments are under challenge in the connected appeals²[Civil Appeal Nos. 11749 and 11750 of 2025] before us.

FACTS

2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeals, are these:

a. Certain posts of Intermediate Trained Teacher (Classes I to V) were advertised on 10th August, 2015³[Advertisement No. 10/2015] by the District Education Superintendent, Dhanbad (respondent no. 4) ⁴[Department]. The appellants applied for the post and acquitted themselves successfully in the recruitment process. After completion of the joining formalities, the appellants started discharging their duties from December, 2015 as teachers.

b. On 27th September, 2016, show cause notices were issued to the appellants alleging that they did not fulfil the eligibility criterion of having secured a minimum of 45% marks in their intermediate examination (Class XII). Questions were also raised on the validity of their certificates of graduation.

c. In October 2016, through separate replies to the show cause notices, the appellants contended that being members of the Scheduled Tribe category, they were required to secure only 40% marks in the intermediate examination and not 45%. In other words, they were entitled to a relaxation of 5% marks in terms of the advertisement. It was further asserted that Ravi, Premlal and Surendra had secured 42.55%, 40.22%, and 41.33% marks, respectively, in the intermediate examination and, thus, were eligible for participation in the recruitment process. With respect to the issue concerning their graduation certificates, the appellants clarified that no graduation certificate was required for appointment on posts of teachers in Classes I–V, and that the same had been furnished by them only for the sake of completeness.

d. On 7th October, 2016, by separate office orders, the services of the appellants were terminated on the ground that they had secured less than 40% marks in the intermediate examination and that their certificates of graduation were not proper. According to the calculation made by the Department, Ravi, Premlal, and Surendra had secured 38.56%, 39.78%, and 39% marks, respectively in the intermediate examination. In arriving at this calculation, the Department excluded the additional marks secured by the appellants in the vocational subject. We shall examine the validity of this method of calculation a little later.

e. Appellants challenged the termination orders dated 7th October, 2016, before the High Court by filing separate writ petitions⁵[W.P. (S) Nos. 6607, 6704 and 6608 of 2016]. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed these petitions in the years 2018 and 2022 and, consequently, the impugned termination orders were set aside.

f. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred intra-court appeals. As noted before, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed these appeals and dismissed the challenge laid by the appellants to the orders terminating their services.

g. Crestfallen by such determination, the appellants have invoked this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

JUDGMENTS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE

3. The writ petition filed by Ravi was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16th August, 2018 whereas the remaining two writ petitions presented by Premlal and Surendra were allowed vide a common judgment and order dated 10th November, 2022. A summary of the judgments reads thus:

a. W.P. (S) No. 6607 of 2016 of Ravi: The Single Judge noted that the respondent (department), for ascer