Page 1 of 7. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17488 of 2016 Mamata Sukla ..... Petitioner In Person -versus- State of Odisha &Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. R. Achary, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.07.2026 Order No.12 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of above facts and circumstances stated above, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the writ application, issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. parties to show cause as to why the writ application shall not be admitted and why the office order dated 11.03.2016(Annexure-10), office order dated 25.08.2016(Annexure-11) and office order dated 1.9.2016(Annexure-12) shall not be quashed. If the Opp. parties fail to show cause or give insufficient cause, Your Lordships' be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari in quashing the aforesaid office orders with direction to O.Ps to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, with the grant of all consequential financial and service benefits. And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Page 2 of 7. And for which act of your kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner on being found suitable was engaged as a Field Worker on contract basis under Odisha Sickle Cell Project vide order of engagement issued on 31.08.2010 under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that such engagement of the Petitioner was renewed from time to time and Petitioner went on discharging her duty as assigned to her. 4.2. It is contended that while so continuing, taking into account the decision taken by the State level Contract Renewal Committee in its meeting held on 04.03.2016, Petitioner was issued with an office order on 11.03.2016 under Annexure-10 to the following effect. “The State Level Contract Renewal Committee in its meeting held on 04.03.2016 has decided, the contractual service of Mrs. Mamata Sukla, Programme Associate, Sickle Cell Project, DHH Sambalpur has been kept under observation for a quarter from the date of issue of this order as her performance has been rated as "Average" in the PAR pertaining to the period from 05.01.2015 to 04.12.2015.” 4.3. Subsequently, Petitioner’s performance after being assessed again, in the meeting held on 06.08.2016, Petitioner’s engagement under the NRHM was treated to have ceased w.e.f. 10.06.2016, vide office order dated 25.08.2016 under Annexure-11. Page 3 of 7. 4.4. Petitioner thereafter was relieved from her post w.e.f. 03.09.2016 vide office order dated 01.09.2016 under Annexure-12. Petitioner, who appeared in person contended that the State level Contract Renewal Committee decided not to renew the engagement of the Petitioner basing on the letter issued by the CDMO-cum-District Mission Director, Sambalpur-Opp. Party No.3 so available under Annexure-B/2 dated 16.02.2016. 4.5. It is contended that Opp. Party No.3 without any basis and without having any adverse materials gave some adverse finding against the Petitioner, in his letter under Annexure-B/2 and relying on the same the Renewal Committee did not recommend for renewal of the engagement of the Petitioner in its meeting held on 04.03.2016. 4.6. Accordingly, Annexure-10 order dated 11.03.2016 was issued and thereafter basing on the subsequent office orders issued on 25.08.2016 under Annexure-11 and 01.09.2016 under Annexure-12, Petitioner was disengaged w.e.f. 10.06.2016 and was relieved from her work w.e.f. 03.09.2016. 4.7. It is vehemently contended that since Petitioner’s further continuance was not renewed, taking into account the letter issued by the Opp. Party No.3 on 16.02.2016 under Annexure-B/2 and the said adverse report is without having any materials against the Petitioner, relying on the same, Petitioner could not have been disengaged with passing of the order under Annexure-10 to 12. It is further contended that such adverse report was submitted suo- moto by Opp. Party No.3 and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in proving her innocence. Page 4 of 7. 4.8. It is further contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dated 25.01.2017, passed an interim order to the effect that any appointment made pursuant to Annexure-1 for the post ‘Programme Associate, Odisha Sickle Cell Project’ shall be subject to the result of the Petitioner. 4.9. It is accordingly contended that since without having any material against the Petitioner and basing on the suo-moto report submitted by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-B/2, Petitioner was disengaged from her work, the same requires interference of this Court and Opp. Party No.2 be directed to re-engage the Petitioner in the post, she was holding at the time of her disengagement. 5. Mr. R. Achary, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken by the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that basing on the letter issued by the Mission Directorate on 01.10.2011 under Annexure- A/2 and letter issued by the Opp. Party No.3 on 16.02.2016, under Annexure-B/2 when the Renewal Committee did not recommend the renewal of the Petitioner vide office order dated 11.03.2016 under Annexure-10, and on the face of such office order being issued under Annexure-10 Petitioner did not improve her performance, she was disengaged w.e.f. 10.06.2016 vide order dated 25.08.2016 under Annexure-11. Petitioner subsequently was relieved from the post w.e.f. 03.09.2016 vide order dated 01.09.2016 under Annexure-12. 5.1. It is contended that since Opp. Party No.3 in terms of the guideline issued by the Mission Directorate under Annexure-A/2, gave adverse report against the Petitioner vide Annexure/B/2, no Page 5 of 7. illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of Opp. Party No.2 in disengaging the Petitioner from her work. 6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission on the stand taken on the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.4. 6.1. It is contended that since the performance of the Petitioner for the period from 05.01.2015 to 04.12.2015 was rated as ‘average’, the State level Contract Renewal Committee in its meeting held on 04.03.2016 did not recommend for renewal of the engagement of the Petitioner. 6.2. Accordingly, Petitioner was disengaged by Opp. Party No.2 vide orders issued under Annexure-11 & 12. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.4. “5. That the matter stood thus, consequent upon the seizure of financial support from Orissa Health Sector Plan, the Orissa Sickle Cell Project has been handed over to Mission Directorate under the control of NRHM, Orissa. Accordingly, the Mission Directorate issued fresh order of engagement in respect of the present petitioner vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was transferred from V.S.S. Medical College to District Headquarter Hospital, Sambalpur and she has been directed to report the CDMO, Sambalpur vide order dated 14.12.2012. The engagement of the petitioner has been extended/renewed from time to time. It is to state here that the State Level Contract Renewal Committee meeting was held on 04.03.2016, as the performance of the petitioner Page 6 of 7. has been rated as average in the PAR pertaining to the period from 05.01.2015 to 04.12.2015, she was kept under observation. The said rating was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No.0963, dated 11.03.2016 under Annexure-10 to the writ petition. As the rating of the petitioner has not been improved, the Mission Directorate decided not to allow for further extension, her contract with the Mission Directorate (Department of Health and Family Welfare Society), National Health Mission issued w.e.f. 10.06.2016 has been ceased and she has been requested to take her entitlement. It is pertinent to state here that the petitioner has been relieved from the Office of the CDMO-cum- District Mission Director, Sambalpur w.e.f. 03.09.2016. There is no privity of contract between the petitioner with the present deponent since 14.12.2012.” 7. Having heard the Petitioner in person and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. R. Achary, learned counsel appearing for the Mission Directorate-Opp. Party No.2, and considering the submission, this Court finds that basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 and by facing due selection procedure, Petitioner was engaged as a Field Worker vide order of engagement issued on 31.08.2010 under Annexure-3. As found and which is not disputed, Petitioner’s engagement was renewed from time to time. 7.1. However, since the State Level Contract Renewal Committee in its meeting held on 04.03.2016, decided not to renew engagement of the Petitioner, office order dated 11.03.2016 under Annexure-10 was issued by opp. Party No.2. Thereafter vide order issued on 25.08.2016 under Annexure-11, Petitioner while was disengaged w.e.f. 10.06.2016, but was relieved from her work w.e.f. 03.10.2016, vide order dated 01.09.2016 under Annexure-12. Page 7 of 7. 7.2. It is found that all such action was taken against the Petitioner, basing on the letter issued by the Opp. Party No.3 on 16.02.2016 under Annexure-B/2. Since there is no material available in the record nor enclosed to either of the counter affidavits showing any such material was available with Opp. Party No.3, to give such adverse remark/report against the Petitioner, it is the view of this Court that basing on such adverse report, Petitioner could not have been disengaged after the Committee decided not to renew her engagement any further. No stand has also been taken in either of the counter affidavit as to the basis on which Opp. Party No.3 came to such finding against the Petitioner so reflected in letter dated 16.02.2016 under Annexure-B/2. 7.3. Since there is no material available in the record giving rise to the submission of the adverse report against the Petitioner by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-B/2 and the same is only the basis of disengagement of the Petitioner, this Court in view of such irregularities which are apparent on the face of the record, is inclined to quash order dated 25.08.2016 and 01.09.2016 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 & 3 under Annexure-11 & 12. 7.4. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opp. Party No2 & 3 to re-engage the Petitioner in her post with passing of the fresh order within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti