Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Mamata Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding petitioner’s contract and termination. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on procedural flaws in assessment. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments regarding erroneous evaluation of performance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal reasoning for setting aside the impugned order. (Para 11) |
| 5. final order directing renewal of contract. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
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.
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 therefore, humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may g
Contract non-renewal based on erroneous performance appraisal without opportunity to respond contravenes natural justice principles.
The authority erred by not adjudicating the validity of termination before refusing reinstatement, highlighting the necessity of due process in employment decisions.
The court emphasized the necessity for fair procedures in administrative actions affecting employment rights, quashing the termination due to violations of natural justice.
The termination of services should be made by the appointing authority, and proper opportunity of hearing must be provided before making a decision with serious implications.
Judicial review cannot extend to altering the terms of a contract post-expiry, and the principles of natural justice were upheld in the termination process.
Violation of principles of natural justice and the need for the new incumbent to make way for the reinstated employee.
A termination order can be deemed stigmatic if issued without proper inquiry, violating principles of natural justice, necessitating reinstatement of the affected party.
The termination lacked evidence of misconduct and was based on penal clauses in the agreement. The Ombudsman's report suggested action against other parties involved in irregularities, indicating the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
