An employee cannot be disengaged for authorities’ erroneous calculation of qualifying marks.

Respondent No. 1, Kumudini Dash, was engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak at Govindpur Nodal U.P. School, Bhadrak.

During verification of her educational certificates, the authorities found that, while calculating her percentage for appointment, marks obtained in an extra-optional subject had been included.

Although her certificates were genuine, she was disengaged by order dated 9 October 2008 on the ground of erroneous calculation of marks.

She challenged the disengagement before the High Court.

The learned Single Judge held that she was not responsible for the authorities’ mistake and directed her immediate reinstatement with arrear salary by judgment dated 22 December 2023.

The State filed the present intra-court appeal, contending that the relevant vacancies had subsequently been filled by other candidates.

The record also showed that one of those candidates had been directed to be engaged against a supernumerary post until a regular vacancy arose.

Whether the respondent’s disengagement was legally sustainable when her certificates were genuine and the alleged ineligibility resulted solely from the authorities’ method of calculating marks by including marks obtained in an extra-optional subject.

Whether the respondent could be reinstated and continued as a Sikshya Sahayak notwithstanding the State’s contention that the relevant posts had subsequently been filled by other candidates.

The Court applied the principle that a candidate should not suffer for an error committed by the appointing authorities, particularly where the candidate’s certificates are genuine and the disputed calculation concerns the authorities’ interpretation or application of the eligibility criteria.

It relied on Tarunakanti Sethi v. State of Orissa and Others, 110 (2010) CLT 545, which held that marks obtained in an extra-optional subject should not mechanically be deducted when calculating eligibility on the basis of +2 marks; such marks may properly be counted, especially where the additional subject is relevant to the engagement.

The Court also recognised the remedial principle that an employee who suffered without fault could be accommodated against a supernumerary post until a regular vacancy arose, as reflected in the coordinate Bench’s order in W.A. No. 110 of 2009.

The appeal was considered under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948, and Rule 2 of Chapter VIII of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948.

The Court noted that the respondent’s certificates had been verified as genuine and that the alleged defect arose only from the authorities’ calculation of her marks by including the extra-optional subject.

Applying Tarunakanti Sethi, the Court held that the State’s own submission—that the precedent squarely applied—undermined the justification for disengagement.

The respondent was therefore not at fault and could not be deprived of service on account of the appointing authority’s error.

The State’s objection that the posts had been filled was rejected because the engagement of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not legally prevent the respondent’s reinstatement; in particular, one such candidate had herself been accommodated against a supernumerary post pursuant to an earlier judicial direction.

The Court further noted that the respondent was stated to be continuing in service and performing duties without receiving salary, and that the State had not effectively controverted this position.

The Court upheld the learned Single Judge’s direction for her reinstatement with arrear salary and dismissed W.A. No. 704 of 2024.

The authorities were expected to implement the impugned judgment as early as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the appellate judgment.