[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Sangram Biswal vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 8 December, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      W.P.(C). No. 17881 of 2016


      (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
      of India)

                                 ---------------
      Sangram Biswal                  ......       Petitioner

                                    -Versus-

      State of Odisha & Others      ....   Opposite Parties
      _______________________________________________________

        For Petitioner    : Mr. T.Nanda, Advocate,

         For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik,
                          Additional Government Advocate for
                          State
                          Mrs. J.R.Tripathy,
                          Special counsel for MGNREGS

      _______________________________________________________
      CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                               JUDGMENT

8th December, 2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

following prayer:

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the

facts sated in the writ petition, admit the same, issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause:-

i) Why the petitioner shall not be engaged as Gram Rozagar Sevak (GRS) of Uparjhar G.P under Deogaon Block in the district of Bolangir.

If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule may kindly be made absolute.

And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper;

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to an

advertisement dated 19.10.2015 issued for engagement

of Gram Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) in different Gram

Panchayats of Bolangir district, he submitted his

application. In the selection process, he was placed at

the second position with one Padmanabha Padhan

securing the first position. For some reason, said

Padmanabha Padhan did not join. The petitioner being

placed at Sl. No.2 in the merit list, expected to be

engaged. Accordingly, he submitted a representation

addressed to the then PD, DRDA, Bolangir. Since no

action was taken, he has approached this Court seeking

the relief as already quoted hereinbefore.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the BDO (Opp.

Party Nos. 2 and 4) inter alia stating that as per the

terms of the advertisement dated 19.10.2015, the

petitioner having been engaged as GRS earlier was

disengaged on the grounds of poor performance/lapses

in MGNREGS work. As such, he cannot be considered

for fresh engagement.

4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder seeking to

rebut the contention of the State by submitting that the

disengagement of the petitioner earlier cannot be treated

as misconduct so as to attract the mischief of the

relevant selection criteria mentioned in the

advertisement.

5. Heard Mr. T. Nanda, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the

State and Mrs. J.R.Tripathy, learned Special counsel for

MGNREGS.

6. Mr. Nanda draws attention of this Court to the

advertisement dated 19.10.2015 and in particular, to

the selection criteria mentioned under Clause-(c). He

submits that only if a candidate's previous employment

is found to have been disengaged on the ground of

misconduct/poor performance then only he would not

be eligible. But in the instant case, the order dated

27.04.2013 passed by the PD, DRDA, Bolangir

disengaging the petitioner as GRS of Uparjhar Gram

Panchayat is not due to any proven misconduct. As

such, the petitioner's case cannot be brought within the

purview of the selection criteria mentioned above.

7. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA would submit that

the earlier disengagement of the petitioner was on the

ground of poor performance in MGNREGS work. The

order of disengagement was challenged by the petitioner

before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 11190 of 2013 but the

same was dismissed. The petitioner carried appeal to the

Division Bench in W.A. No.389 of 2014, which also came

to be dismissed. Thus, the order of disengagement

passed earlier against him has attained finality.

8. Mrs. J.R.Tripathy, learned Special counsel for

MGNREGS adopts the arguments made by Mr. Pattnaik,

and additionally submits that the petitioner's

performance in MGNREGS work being poor he was

rightly disengaged and therefore, cannot be considered

for engagement as per the advertisement under

Annexure-1.

9. Perusal of the advertisement dated 19.10.2015

would reveal that the selection criteria is mentioned as

follows:

Age Between 18 to 40 years as on 01.10.2015

Educational 10+2 pass and preference will be given to Commerce stream qualificationHaving Computer proficiency of "O" level with use of Odia language in Computer.

Selection a)Selection will be made purely on the basis of % of marks of 10+2 Criteria b)The candidates shall be the permanent resident of the gram Panchayat for which they apply.

c)If no Candidate is available in that particular Gram Panchayats will be considered. Candidates engaged earlier but subsequently disengaged/removed on the ground of misconduct/poor performance etc. are not eligible.

Remuneration a)Consolidated remuneration of Rs.3500/-(Rupees Three Thousand F Five Hundred) only per month.

b) No other allowances is admissible.

(Emphasis Added)

10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,

unless there is proof of disengagement due to

misconduct/poor performance, the candidature cannot

be rejected.

11. In order to appreciate the contentions as above,

this Court has perused the previous order of

disengagement dated 27.04.2013, which has already

attained finality. It is seen that the petitioner was

disengaged on the basis of an inquiry report, where it

was established that he had connived with ill-intention

and violated the various provisions of MGNREGS. The

words, 'misconduct' or 'poor performance' in MGNREGS

work is not specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, there

can be no other interpretation made to the grounds cited

in the order of disengagement than the fact that the

petitioner was in fact disengaged because of misconduct

in his work. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v.

Ex-Constable Ram Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 54 has

interpreted the meaning of the word, 'Misconduct' as

follows:

"6. Thus it could be seen that the word 'misconduct' though not capable of precise definition, on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude, it must be improper or wrong behaviour; unlawful behaviour, wilful in character; forbidden act, a transgression of

established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality or character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order."

[Emphasis Added]

12. Since the order has attained finality, this Court

would not offer any comments on the same but fact

remains that the petitioner was held to have violated

various provisions of MGNREGS work which by itself is

a misconduct. Therefore, notwithstanding the language

used in the order of disengagement, the claim of the

petitioner that it would not amount to misconduct/poor

performance is unacceptable.

13. From what has been narrated above, it is clear that

the previous order of disengagement brings the case of

the petitioner within the mischief of the selection criteria