1. Appointment Terms of the Respondent (Paras 2-3)

The respondent was engaged as a Computer Technician on 23.04.2001 for a one-year term or until the post was filled regularly, whichever was earlier. The engagement was temporary and project-based under the UGC Development Grant.

2. Termination of Employment (Para 3)

On 22.01.2002, the respondent's services were terminated abruptly, citing no requirement for the post.

3. Challenge before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (Paras 4-7)

The respondent challenged the termination as violative of natural justice and lacking reasoning. The Tribunal granted pay for the unexpired term but declined reinstatement, citing a lack of procedural regularity in the respondent's appointment.

4. High Court Decision Granting Reinstatement (Paras 8-9)

The Orissa High Court overturned the Tribunal's order, citing similar cases where terminated employees were reinstated. The High Court directed reinstatement with all service and financial benefits.

5. Supreme Court Analysis and Rationale (Paras 14-22)

The Court observed:

• The appointment was purely temporary and not made through any statutory recruitment process.
• Reinstatement post-lapse of the term was not justified under constitutional principles.
• Negative equality (granting relief solely because it was provided in other cases) is not tenable under Article 14.

6. Relief Granted (Paras 22-23)

The Court set aside the High Court's order but acknowledged the State's differential treatment of similar cases. As equitable relief, the Court awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹5 lakhs to the respondent.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India

   • Article 14 (Equality before law)
   • Articles 226 and 227 (High Court jurisdiction)

2. Judicial Precedents

   • Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1
   • State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) 19 SCC 626
   • State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330

Ratio Decidendi:

Temporary employees engaged without adherence to a regular recruitment process do not acquire a right to reinstatement upon termination. Courts must evaluate claims individually, and the principle of negative equality under Article 14 cannot be applied to perpetuate illegality.

Subjects:

Employment Law, Service Jurisprudence
Temporary Employment, Termination of Services, Natural Justice, Compensation in lieu of Reinstatement, Article 14, Negative Equality.