CUTTACK: In a strong indictment of arbitrary administrative action, the Orissa High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the Odisha State Education Programme Authority (OSEPA) while setting aside the demotion of one of its officers and directing that he be restored as assistant director (management information system) with all consequential service and financial benefits.
A division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, in a recent judgment on a writ appeal filed by Pravat Kumar Mishra, quashed a December 24, 2020 order that had reduced him from assistant director (MIS) to the entry-level post of programmer-cum-training officer. The bench also overturned a single judge’s July 16, 2024 order that had upheld the demotion.
The court also directed OSEPA to pay Rs 1 lakh to Mishra within eight weeks, observing that the amount could be recovered personally from the erring officials in accordance with law.
The bench held that Mishra had been appointed as programmer-cum-training officer in 1998 and later absorbed as system analyst in 2006. The post was re-designated as assistant director (MIS) the same year. Having worked in that capacity for over 15 years without complaint, his sudden reversion was found to be legally untenable.
Rejecting OSEPA’s justification that Mishra lacked a valid Master of Computer Applications (MCA) degree, the court said the authorities failed to establish that an MCA qualification was ever prescribed for the post at the time of his appointment or absorption.
“Unless this Twin Test is satisfied, no employee can be reduced in rank by a stroke of pen. An argument to the contrary would offend the settled principles of service jurisprudence,” the bench ruled.
The judges also distinguished between a fictitious certificate and an invalid degree issued by an institution not authorised to award such qualifications. They noted there was no allegation that Mishra had committed fraud or fabricated documents.
“A qualification not prescribed by law cannot be superimposed by some officials who have propensity to act as despots,” the bench remarked, describing the impugned order as arbitrary.
