Can't Suffer For Official Lapse: Orissa High Court Backs Reinstatement Of Employee Removed For Being Minor During Appointment

The Orissa High Court has recently upheld an order of Administrative Tribunal reinstating a female employee who was removed from service on the ground that she was a minor at the time of appointment, while the minimum eligibility age was 18 years.

For confirming the impugned order, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash reasoned –

“In the matter of engagement, where all documents are produced by the aspiring candidates, the process of engagement takes place indoor and therefore, the doctrine of 'indoor management' comes into play. It is not the case of Petitioners that OP had committed any fraud or fabrication or any act of suppressio very suggestio falsi.”

The Union Government/petitioners filed this writ petition assailing the order of Central Administrative Tribunal which granted indulgence in favour of the opposite party-female employee who was earlier removed from her service on the ground that she was a minor at the time of appointment.

An advertisement was issued for the concerned appointment on 14.08.2013. The opposite party's date of birth is 07.06.1996. It was the case of the government that though the minimum age for appointment was prescribed as 18 years, the opposite party came to be appointed at the age of 17 years and 9 months, which was against the rule.

On the other side, it was the vehement contention of the opposite party that she was removed from service without any opportunity of hearing and that too on 18.04.2016, almost two years after the date of appointment. It was her further case that on the date of removal, she had already attained majority and that there was no complaint whatsoever against discharge of her duties.

Upon hearing both the sides, the Court was of the view that the doctrine of 'indoor management' comes into picture in this case. The Bench was also satisfied that the employee did not commit any fraud or fabrication nor she suppressed her date of birth inasmuch as she had produced her matriculation certificate, which enjoys strong backing of law as evidence of date of birth, at the time of document verification.

The petitioner attempted to justify the removal by pressing into service the landmark ruling in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12, which held contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio. However, the Court nixed such contention by observing –

“The very Mohori Bibee recognizes validity of minors' contracts when they are substantially for their benefit. Contention of the kind ordinarily avails to the minor to repudiate his/her agreement, that too subject to all just exceptions. Mr. Parhi very fairly tells us that the case is not of civil service and that he has no information as to any complaint about OP's discharge of duty. In cases of this nature, arguably the maxim factum valet quod fieri dabuit (what ought not to be done becomes valid when done) becomes invocable.”

The Court also found fault with the petitioners for their delayed approach, which according to it imperilled the case for removal.

“There would have been an arguable case for the Petitioners warranting interference of this Court, if OP was too young, like 15 or 16 year old when appointment order was issued on 09.05.2014 or that the order removing OP was made within a short period of her attaining the majority or that the performance of OP was unsatisfactory. For the long delay brooked in removing the OP, no explanation is offered. Therefore, while removing a person from employment/engagement, a strong case has to be made out.”

Resultantly, the petitioners were ordered to reinstate the opposite party in service within six weeks and to file compliance thereof.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Kalpana Nayak

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 5592 of 2019

Date of Judgment: January 12, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr. K. Panda, Central Government Counsel

Counsel for the Opposite Party: M/s. C.P. Sahani, P.K. Samal, B.K.Samal & P.K. Beura, Advocates

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 8

Click Here To Read/Download Order