IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of employment without following the principles of natural justice, especially when the employee has a valid appointment, is unlawful and discriminatory.

JUDGMENT

1. Dr. B.R. Sarangi, ACJ.

The petitioner, who was the applicant in O.A. No. 1552 of 1991 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Tribunal in the said Original Application.

2. The fact leading to the approach this Court, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner, after passing her graduation, had registered her name with the employment exchange. An advertisement was floated by the Board of Revenue to fill up the posts of Junior Assistant. As the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria fixed in the advertisement, applied for the said recruitment and was allotted with Roll Number-1100874. Name of the petitioner was sponsored by opposite party no.3 to the Deputy Director Marketing and Ex-Officio Under Secretary to Government, Industries Department on 09.08.1991 for being appointed as a Junior Assistant, pursuant to the requisition made by opposite party No.2, and it was further pointed out that the order of appointment may be issued in favour of the petitioner as per the address given. Accordingly, on 22.08.1991, the petitioner was issued with an order of appointment as Junior Assistant in the establishment of opposite party no.2 in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500/- with usual DA as admissible from time to time. Pursuant to the said order of appointment, the petitioner joined on 26.08.1991. While the petitioner was discharging her duties, opposite party no.4 wrote a letter on 09.10.1991 to opposite party no.2 in pointing out that the name of the petitioner was erroneously sponsored for the post of Junior Assistant and in the said letter a request was made to terminate the services of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of her appointment and on receipt of the confirmation about the termination of the services of the petitioner, steps would be taken to sponsor suitable candidate.

2.1. Aggrieved by such action of the opposite parties, petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing O.A. No. 1552 of 1991, in which it was pointed out that the opposite parties are estopped under law, by virtue of their own conduct, as the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement, had applied for the post of Junior Assistant and appeared at the written test, her name being sponsored by opposite party no.3, she was issued with an order of appointment and, as such, petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged omission on the part of the opposite parties. After joining the post of Junior Assistant, a right was accrued in her favour to hold the post and, as such, she cannot be terminated without following the principles of natural justice. More so, it was pointed out that the action of the opposite parties in terminating the services of the petitioner is in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 311 of the Constitution of India.

2.2. The Tribunal, while admitting the Original Application, granted stay of the order dated 09.10.1991, by which a request was made to terminate the services of the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of her appointment. Pursuant to the notices issued by the Tribunal, the opposite parties filed their reply, in which it was pointed out that the petitioner was not at all selected and, as such, her name was not included in the select list prepared by the Selection Committee and, as such, the sponsoring of the name of the petitioner was erroneous. The then Director of Examinations of the Board of Revenue, who was the instrumentality in sponsoring the name of the petitioner, was placed under suspension and a proceeding was also initiated against him. Like the petitioner, three more persons, who were issued with the order of appointment pursuant to their names, being sponsored by opposite party No.3, had approached the Tribunal challenging the proposed action of the opposite parties in terminating their services at the dictate of opposite party No.4, who had made similar request