Contract non-renewal based on erroneous performance appraisal without opportunity to respond contravenes natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. Order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the State Mission Director-cum-CEO, Odisha Livelihood Mission (OLM) is under challenge in the present writ application, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for her reinstatement in the post of Block Livelihoods Coordinator-II (BLC-II) was rejected.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the Panchayati Raj Department introduced a project called Odisha Poverty Reduction Mission (TRIPTI). Pursuant to an advertisement issued for engagement of Cluster Coordinators under the said project, the petitioner submitted her candidature, was selected and appointed to work vide letter dated 15.12.2009. The project was closed on 30.06.2015 and the engagement of the petitioner and other persons similarly appointed was terminated w.e.f. 29.05.2015. 199 such affected persons approached this Court challenging their termination, which was stayed. In the meantime, the Government, as a matter of policy, decided to absorb the said employees under the Odisha Livelihood Mission. Basing on skilled mapping and personal interviews of all the candidates, including the petitioner, she was selected and appointed as Block Livelihood Coordinator (BLC) by executing an agreement on 23.02.2016, valid for one year. Though the contracts of other employees were subsequently renewed, the petitioner’s contract was not renewed for reasons unknown to her. She approached the authorities, but to no avail. The petitioner and one Bikram Keshari Dhal approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1161 of 2018.

Counter was filed by OLM, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was posted at Kabisurjyanagar under the administrative control of the BDO and the supervising authority being the Project Director, DRDA. As per the manual/guidelines of OLM, the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) is to be routed through the concerned BDO and to be countersigned by the PD,DRDA. The petitioner had submitted her PAR to the BDO, Kabisurjyanagar, which was countersigned by the PD,DRDA.

The petitioner contends that the reference purportedly made to her actually relates to another person of the same name who was probably working in Kabisurjyanagar. This Court, by order dated 24.07.2024 passed in the earlier writ application directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority regarding the erroneous indication in her PAR, with direction to said authority to look into the grievance and take appropriate action regarding renewal of the contract. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted representation before the Opposite Party No.2, which came to be disposed of by the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is based on erroneous facts, inasmuch as it has been stated therein that the petitioner, bypassing the reporting authority has directly submitted her PAR before the BDO. Secondly, the supervising authority having graded the petitioner as ‘good’, the PD,DRDA could not have graded her as ‘below average’. In any case, no prior notice or any opportunity to show cause regarding her alleged poor performance was ever served upon her. The writ application has been filed under the above facts with the following prayer:

“The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned orders under Annexure-7 shall not be quashed/set-aside and as to why the agreement of the petitioner shall not be renewed afresh. If the opposite parties failed to show cause or shown insufficient cause the rule may be made absol