'Spent Prime Of His Youth In Court Corridors': Orissa HC Raps State For Removing Teacher On Same Grounds After Reinstatement

'What is State without justice, but a band of robbers…,” the Orissa High Court quoted Jeremy Bentham as it castigated the State and its officials for making a teacher belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) community to fight multiple litigations challenging his illegal removal from the post for the second time on a non-applicable ground, notwithstanding his earlier reinstatement.

The Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash lamented the manner in which the employee belonging to a “downtrodden community” was made to suffer at the whims of government authorities for over two decades. It scathingly remarked–

“The fruits of victorious battles to some extent eluded him. Mindlessness and callousness galore on the part of authorities 'that be'. A scrupulous member of downtrodden community was made to spend the prime of his youth in the Court corridors, that are not a happy place to hover. That cannot go unscathed. Someone has to raise the red flag and we are doing it. What all happened in this case reminds us of Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (1832-1898). It raises a question; whether State is the first enemy of scrupulous citizens? We do not venture to answer it. It was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) who had said 'What is State without justice, but a band of robbers…'. Much is not necessary to deliberate.”

Chequered history of the lis

To put briefly, the respondent joined was as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak on 11.12.2003 at UGUP School, Gualigaon upon successfully qualifying an examination pursuant to a notification dated 25.03.2003 issued by the Director of Elementary Education.

Subsequently, by an order dated 19.07.2006, the Collector disengaged the respondent in the light of judgment of the High Court in Hrushikesh Bindhani v. State of Odisha (2004). He challenged the disengagement order almost instantly, which resulted in quashing of the impugned order and a direction for fresh consideration. After a long delay, the Collector issued a fresh engagement order on 12.02.2009 for a period of one year in favour of the respondent. While doing so, the Collector had specifically remarked that the judgment in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) is not applicable to the case of the respondent.

Upon reinstatement, the respondent filed another writ petition seeking to treat his service as continuous for the period he was illegally kept out of service. He sought parity with other similarly situated candidates who were given continuity of service. The Court had then asked the authority to consider his representation, which was ultimately rejected in October 2012.

Strangely, the Collector again issued notice to the respondent on 25.03.2013 asking him to show cause as to why he should not be disengaged from service in the light of a case involving another individual. Though the respondent filed another writ petition against the notice, he was removed from service during its pendency, strikingly in the light of Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra). When the removal was challenged before the Single Judge, it was set at naught. The State, yet again, filed an intra-court appeal challenging the relief granted to the respondent.

“Mindless” action of authorities

Upon hearing the arguments put-forth by the parties, the Division Bench expressed its astonishment over the arbitrary acts of the authorities. It notably remarked–

“The answering Appellants arbitrarily and capriciously had caused disengagement mindlessly applying the decision in Hrushikesh Bindhani supra, having earlier held it to be inapplicable, in so many words. This decision was not the subject matter of show cause notice stating that the same was wrongly held to be inapplicable. It hardly needs to be stated that the findings recorded in the earlier orders pursuant to the remand by the learned Single Judge would operate akin to res judicata.”

The Court, therefore, found no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Single Bench.

Discrimination against a “downtrodden”

Apart from pointing out the legal anomalies involved in the case, the Court proactively highlighted the difficulties faced by the respondent, who comes from a downtrodden SC community. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Shripad was the least hesitant to remind the appellant authorities of the words of Rabindranath Tagore and Martin Luther King, Jr., who had intensely advocated against casteism.

“From time to time several great persons have campaigned for the eradication of these maladies that had put a large chunk of people to enormous social disadvantage and suffering. Then came the Great Ambedkar with a book in hand 'Annihilation of Caste'. Under his leadership, a progressive Constitution came to be enacted inter alia providing for abolition of untouchability, and reservation by affirmative action in favour of oppressed communities,” he added.

“All the above being said, still individual cases of discrimination of downtrodden in the matter education and employment galore, needs no research for demonstration. Case of the Respondent is one that of class. He was made to run to pillar to the post, on umpteen times,” the Judge bewailed.

The Bench considered it a fit case to impose exemplary costs on the State, but made its realisation conditional.

“In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, with an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only. However, this cost becomes payable by the Appellant-State, if impugned order of the learned Single Judge is not implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks. Even otherwise, time for compliance is eight (8) weeks only, failing which the Appellants run the risk of contempt proceedings,” it ordered.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Ors. v. Debendra Nath Malik

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1825 of 2024

Date of Judgment: February 25, 2026

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. D.N. Rath, A.K. Saa & S. Das, Advocates

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 28

Click Here To Read/Download Order