Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 23 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Dr. Durga Shankar Pattanaik, Professor (Post‑Graduate Department of Geology, Utkal University). Opposite Parties – State of Odisha & Ors., represented by the University administration and the Chancellor of Universities, Odisha.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging Office Order No.5402 dated 31.05.2023, which appointed Dr. Navaneeta Rath as Chairman of the PG Council effective 01.06.2023 and removed the petitioner.
  • Background: The petitioner had been appointed Chairman of the PG Council on 31.05.2022 (Office Order No.15939) for a term of two academic years (01.06.2022 – 31.05.2024) or until superannuation (31.05.2026), whichever was earlier, with a clause “until further orders”. He served in‑charge from 01.03.2022 and regular from 01.06.2022 until 31.05.2023 (≈15 months). On 01.06.2023 he was asked to hand over charge; the removal was communicated after office hours.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: (i) Statute 252(2) mandates a fixed two‑year tenure on a seniority‑cum‑rotation basis; removal after one year violates the statute. (ii) No show‑cause notice or hearing was given, breaching natural justice. (iii) Counter‑affidavit statements that his performance was “not satisfactory” stigmatize his career, invoking Article 311 protection. (iv) He seeks declaration that his tenure was completed and reinstatement (though he will superannuate on 31.05.2026).
  • Opposite Parties’ Contentions: (i) Chairmanship is an additional administrative assignment, not a substantive post; removal does not affect service conditions, thus natural‑justice requirements do not apply. (ii) The phrase “until further orders” in the appointment order reserves the Vice‑Chancellor’s power to modify the assignment; the petitioner accepted this condition. (iii) The Vice‑Chancellor, acting in bona‑fide discretion, found the petitioner’s performance unsatisfactory and reassigned the charge to the next senior professor. (iv) No stigma was intended; a No‑Objection Certificate (18.10.2025) and continued service benefits (as of 22.01.2026) demonstrate the absence of punitive intent.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The statutory provision provides a two‑year tenure, but the “until further orders” clause gives the appointing authority limited flexibility for genuine administrative reasons.
  • This flexibility cannot be exercised arbitrarily or to attach stigma without a fair process, yet the Court found no punitive language or adverse entry in the petitioner’s service record.
  • The counter‑affidavit’s remark on “unsatisfactory performance” pertains only to administrative suitability, not to misconduct or moral turpitude; therefore, the order is not stigmatic.
  • The petitioner’s superannuation on 31.05.2026 and the expiry of the two‑year term (01.06.2022 – 31.05.2024) render any reinstatement impossible; the relief sought is futile.
  • No pecuniary or perquisite claim was made, limiting the Court’s ability to fashion a meaningful remedy.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as moot; no order as to costs.

Topics: University Administration, Service Tenure