SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 86

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
 
Smita Mohanty - Petitioner 
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 10165 of 2021
Decided On : 01-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate Mr. N. Dadhichi, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. G. Tripathy, AGA, Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate.

Termination of long-serving employee deemed unfair after 17 years without qualification challenges.

Headnote:The judgment concerns the legality of the termination of the Petitioner from her Computer Programmer post. The Court analyzed relevant educational qualifications required for the position, considering her long service and satisfactory performance. The impugned termination order was deemed illegal since a lack of requisite qualifications was deemed unfair after 17 years without challenge.

Result: The termination order dated 26 February 2021 is quashed, allowing her to continue in position within six weeks.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.Routray and Mr. P.K.Mohanty, learned Sr.Counsels for respective parties and Mr. G.Tripathy, learned AGA for State-Opposite Party No.1.

2. The Petitioner who is initially appointed as Computer Programmer vide engagement order dated 23rd June 2002 under Annexure-5 and joined on 1st July 2002 has been terminated from service as per the order passed under Annexure-1 dated 26th February 2021 on the ground of lack of requisite qualification. 

3. The Petitioner appeared the walk-in-interview as per advertisement under Annexure-3 and she was selected as the Programmer on 1st July 2002. She discharged her duty satisfactorily and her service book was opened under Annexure-8. At the time of selection and as recorded in the service book, she had qualification of Diploma with Post-Diploma with Computer Integrated M.A. in P.R. Needless to mention here that the contract of engagement of the Petitioner was continued from time to time till the date of her disengagement on 26th February 2021 as per the impugned order. From 1st July 2002 to 26th February 2021, she continued uninterruptedly as her engagement was extended from time to time and in the meantime, her performance being found more than satisfactory, several certificates of appreciation was issued in her favour as per Annexure-14 series. 

4. On 16th December 2019 while the Petitioner was continuing as such, an explanation was sought for regarding disparities found during verification of the certificates/ documents submitted by her at the time of initial appointment. The show-cause notice was issued on 16th December 2019 as per Annexure-10 and the Petitioner submitted her reply to the same stating that whatever qualifications she had at the time of initial appointment and the certificates in that regard has been submitted by her at that time for verification. But upon consideration of her show-cause reply the authorities finding her explanation unsatisfactory on the ground that the PDCA certificate submitted by her is not equivalent to PGDCA and there is no degree certificate in her favour, as required for her engagement at the time of selection to the post of Computer Programmer. The authorities thus held that the Petitioner is not entitled and eligible for the post of Computer Programmer for having not possessed the requisite qualification and as a result of the same, her appointment in the post of Computer Programmer was terminated with effect from 26th February 2021. At the same time, she has been re-engaged in the post of Data Entry Operator considering the fact that her qualification is suitable for such post.

5. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel submits on behalf of the Petitioner that it is not correct to opine that the Petitioner did not have requisite qualification at the time of her selection to the post of Computer Programmer as she along with Diploma qualification had ten years experience in the field to be treated equivalent as degree qualification. It is further submitted that the Petitioner being allowed to continue in the post for more than 17 years with unblemished career, rather her service being appreciated by the higher authorities, it is illegal on the part of the employer to rise after 17 years to treat the petitioner disqualified to hold such post of Computer Programmer. 

6. Conversely, it is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Opposite Parties 2 & 3, the employer, that when the candidate is found upon verification that she is lacking requisite educational qualification to hold the post and she was given opportunity of hearing before her termination from the post, no right is accrued on behalf of the Petitioner to continue in such post particularly without having the requisite qualification. It is also submitted that, what is contended by the Petitioner that her qualification is equivalent to degree including her experience of ten years is an incorrect fact.

7. In view of such rival submissions advance



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top