Authorities cannot disengage an employee based on their own errors during selection; principles of estoppel and approbation/reprobation apply.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the Office Order dated 06.05.2016 under Annexure-10, which was passed/issued by the Collector-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj (Opp. Party No.2) disengaging the petitioner from Shikshya Sahayak with effect from the forenoon of 19.04.2016.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, as per advertisement of the Government for the selection of Shikshya Sahayaks in Betnoti Block of Mayurbhanj District, the petitioner along with others applied for the same. After taking the application, mark sheets and other documents of the petitioner into account, the Opp. Parties selected to the petitioner as Shikshya Sahayak and then, as per the guidelines of the Government, on proper execution of an agreement on dated 22.03.2011 with the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj (Opp. Party No.2), she (petitioner) was appointed as Shikshya Sahayak in Jalghera Primary School under Tarkani Gram Panchayat of Betnoti Block in the District of Mayurbhanj.

Thereafter, as per the Office Order dated 31.03.2011 vide Annexure-3, she (petitioner) worked as Shikshya Sahayak in N.U.P.S, Barasahi. While she (petitioner) serving there as Shikshya Sahayak, on dated 28.07.2011, she (petitioner) received a letter from the Opp. Party No.3 (District Project Coordinator, Sarba Sikhya Abhijan (SSA), District-Mayurbhanj) that,

“she (petitioner) has been selected as Shikshya Sahayak wrongly, because, there was wrong calculation of her marks during selection process, for which, in the proceeding dated 14.04.2011, it was resolved by the members of the selection committee to disengage her (petitioner), as, the marks of the petitioner was not coming under the zone of selection on merit and directed to the petitioner to reply on the same within 7 days.”

To which, the petitioner challenged by filing WP(C) No.21265 of 2011, in which, an interim status quo order was passed on dated 18.08.2011. For which, the petitioner continued in her service as Shikshya Sahayak.

The said WP(C) No.21265 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was disposed of finally on 16.02.2016 directing the Opp. Party No.3 (District Project Co-coordinator, Sarba Sikhya Abhijan (SSA District-Mayurbhanj) to take decision independently in that matter without being prejudiced by the decision of the selection committee relating to the disengagement of the petitioner by taking its own independent view.

Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. In that enquiry, the Opp. Party No.3 took the decision as per Annexure-9 as follows:

“the petitioner was not eligible for selection and engagement as Shikshya Sahayak, as she had secured 90.798% of marks and the said mark of the petitioner was not coming within the zone of selection on merit. Hence her selection as Shikshya Sahayak was wrong and irregular. Therefore, I (Opp. Party No.3) am inclined to conclude that, her engagement was illegal, unlawful and against the law. Hence, she is liable for disengagement being appointed basing on wrong BED marks.”

3. On the basis of the said enquiry report of Opp. Party No.3 vide Annexure-9, the Opp. Party No.2 passed/issued office order vide Annexure-10 on dated 06.05.2016 and disengaged to the petitioner (Sabita Parida) from Shikshya Sahayak w.e.f. forenoon of 19.04.2016 stating that, her engagement as Shikshya Sahayak was unlawful