The Court holds that violation of natural justice cannot be justified on the “useless formality” ground when the very basis for adverse action—such as the cohort or post to which an employee belongs—is factually disputed and unadjudicated. Reaffirms the necessity of a fair hearing in such circumstances; clarifies boundaries of the “no prejudice” exception. Upholds established Supreme Court precedent but narrows automatic application. Serves as binding authority within Odisha.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RVWPET/31/2025 of BANITA BEHERA Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010064962025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Odisha (High Court) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedent, clarifies scope |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that natural justice cannot be dispensed with on the “useless formality” or “no prejudice” principle when the essential jurisdictional fact—whether the petitioner’s engagement stemmed from a valid recruitment process distinct from that declared void—remained undecided. A hearing is essential if identifying the correct legal stream or post could affect the outcome. The batch disposal failed to address whether the petitioner was part of the tainted cohort or not; thus, the order of disengagement was passed without due consideration of this foundational distinction, amounting to a palpable error justifying review. The “no prejudice” doctrine applies only where facts are crystallised and uncontested—not when foundational disputes of fact are unresolved. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division; Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.; Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati; ECIL v. B. Karunakar; Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan; Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise; Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on established precedent that review is not a substitute for appeal; it is available for palpable error, overlooked material, or misapplication of controlling law. The “useless formality”/“no prejudice” doctrine applies only if the result is inevitable and the facts are uncontested; if there remains a core factual dispute affecting legal consequence, the right to be heard is indispensable. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, an SC woman, was engaged as a Swechhasevi Shikshya Sahayak (SSS) against one of 16 reserved posts advertised in March 2003. When the subsequent additional posts created by a 26.09.2003 notification were quashed by the High Court, the petitioner’s engagement was treated as falling within the tainted cohort and she was disengaged without show-cause or hearing. The review petition highlighted that her engagement was under a distinct process, and her case was not factually or legally examined on this basis in the earlier disposal. The Court found this foundational distinction was overlooked, causing grave prejudice and justifying recall of the earlier judgment, remitting the matter for due adjudication. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Odisha; Zilla Parishad / administrative authorities handling SSS disengagements |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India dealing with administrative law and review/scope of natural justice exceptions |
| Follows | Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati; ECIL v. B. Karunakar; Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise |
| Distinguishes | Batch writ petition judgment dated 22.12.2023 (WP(C) No.6290/2018 and connected matters), on the ground that foundational jurisdictional questions were not adjudicated |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that “useless formality” or “no prejudice” doctrines do not apply where the baseline factual stream (e.g., the recruitment cohort to which an employee belongs) is disputed and unadjudicated.
- Reinforces that a hearing must be afforded when foundational jurisdictional facts could affect the outcome, especially where documentary evidence raises plausible alternate claims.
- Demonstrates that even in batch disposals, courts must specifically address each petitioner’s foundational facts if adverse action is to be legally sustained.
- Affirms that review is available for errors apparent on the face of the record resulting from failure to determine essential disputed facts, not for mere re-argument.
- Lawyers should highlight and document foundational factual distinctions in service mandamus or review petitions, especially where mass/batch disposals render blanket legal findings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by outlining established principles governing review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: review is not an appeal, lies only for error apparent on the record, oversight of vital material, or misapplication of law (citing Thungabhadra Industries, Meera Bhanja, Kamlesh Verma).
- On preliminary objection of delay, the Court condoned the lapse considering the contested non-consideration of pre-existing record, invoking the spirit of Shivdeo Singh.
- In dissecting the facts, the judgment distinguished between the original 2003-advertised posts (16 SC women, filled due to lack of trained candidates) and the subsequent 26.09.2003-created posts, with separate selection cycles and legal consequences.
- The earlier (impugned) judgment had relied on Escorts Farms and related “no prejudice” authorities to justify disengagement without hearing, but failed to decide the crucial question—whether the petitioner was part of the tainted/voided cohort or a valid appointee under the earlier recruitment.
- The Court reasoned that, as material supported the petitioner’s case of distinct engagement and this had not been adjudicated, invocation of the “useless formality”/“no prejudice” doctrine was inapposite; prejudice is presumed if facts are contestable and foundational to legal outcome (relying on ECIL v. Karunakar, Dharampal Satyapal, Aligarh Muslim University, etc.).
- The previous batch disposal, by failing to decide this jurisdictional fact, committed a manifest error on the face of the record—justifying review. The matter was remanded to the Collector-cum-CEO for a de novo decision after notice and hearing, with reinstatement in the interim.
- The Court clarified that dismissal of related SLPs by the Supreme Court did not preclude review, nor did it amount to a declaration of law (Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The disengagement was punitive and had civil consequences, mandating audi alteram partem; no opportunity of hearing was provided.
- The order wrongly presumed her engagement was after 26.09.2003, without deciding under which advertisement/cohort she was engaged.
- The adverse action proceeded without disclosing/considering documentary records showing she was selected under the original 2003 advertisement.
- Failure to distinguish her case from others in the batch was a grave error; records supporting her contentions were not produced or considered.
- Prejudice was caused by not adjudicating the specific legal and factual substratum peculiar to her case.
Opposite Parties (State)
- The petitioner was engaged only after completion of recruitment of trained candidates, pursuant to the 15,682 posts created by the 26.09.2003 letter, which had been set aside.
- Her continuance after 26.09.2003 was only due to interim orders; upon dismissal of SLPs, disengagement was proper and in compliance with court directions, so no reviewable error existed.
- The review petition was barred by limitation and only reiterated arguments previously raised; no new or material fact was presented.
- The natural justice issue and requirement for show-cause was already considered and decided in the earlier judgment.
- The judicial directions in earlier judgments governed all such cases; individual distinction was irrelevant.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an SC woman, was engaged as a Swechhasevi Shikshya Sahayak (SSS) following a March 2003 advertisement for 16 SC women posts in Rairangpur Education District, where trained candidates were unavailable. With a government notification on 26.09.2003 creating additional SSS posts, which was later quashed by the High Court, her appointment was assumed to fall within those subsequently voided posts and she was disengaged in 2018 without hearing or show-cause. The petitioner sought review, arguing she was validly engaged in the earlier cycle and her distinctive case on this point was never considered.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: Review lies only for mistake/error apparent, discovery of new/missing material, or analogous reasons; not a substitute for appeal.
- Principle of Natural Justice (audi alteram partem): Must be observed where action impacts civil rights or is punitive in nature, unless exclusion is justified, which is only if facts are uncontested and the action could not be different even after hearing.
- The Court interpreted the “no prejudice”/“useless formality” exception narrowly; it does not oust natural justice where core factual foundation is in dispute.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court condoned delayed filing of the review petition upon showing that the asserted error related to non-consideration of foundational material already on record.
- Instead of remanding, the Court, considering completeness of pleadings and the narrow controversy, quashed the disengagement, ordered interim reinstatement, and set a concrete timeline and process for de novo determination by the Collector-cum-CEO, including specific fact-finding and a speaking order after personal hearing.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and clarifies established Supreme Court precedent on review and natural justice, and narrows the application of the “no prejudice”/“useless formality” doctrine.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Limitation objection for review proceedings was addressed and condoned due to the nature of the error.