RAVI ORAON versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 11 S.C.R. 226 · Decided: 09-10-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 226 : 2025 INSC 1212
Ravi Oraon 
v. 
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 11748 of 2025)
09 October 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Despite fresh appointment of the appellants, the basic question that 
survives is whether the termination of services of the appellants, 
on the ground that their graduation certificates were not valid 
and they had not secured at least 40% marks in the intermediate 
examination taken by them, was proper; nature and extent of grant 
of relief, if any, should the basic question be decided in favour of 
the appellants; claim of the other appellant (since deceased) in 
the changed circumstances.
Headnotes†
Jharkhand Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2012 – 
Show cause notices were issued to the appellants-teachers 
alleging that they did not fulfil the eligibility criterion of 
having secured a minimum of 45% marks in their intermediate 
examination (Class XII) and that their graduation certificates 
were not valid – Appellants replied that being members of the 
ST category, they were required to secure only 40% marks which 
they did and were thus, eligibile – However, the respondents 
terminated the appellants’ services by computing their marks 
after excluding the marks secured in the vocational subject and 
stated that they had secured less than 40% marks and that their 
certificates of graduation were also not proper – Termination 
orders set aside by Single Judge – Division Bench allowed the 
appeals filed by the respondents – Interference with: 
Held: 1.1 The degrees awarded to the appellants prior to 26.02.2015 
have been treated to be valid by the Government of Jharkhand 
by way of a policy decision – Further, termination orders are 
unsustainable and vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, 
set aside – Appellants successfully defended the charge against 
them but the respondents found them guilty of a different charge 
in respect whereof they were not put to notice – In such a case, 
* Author
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 
227
Ravi Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
the finding of guilt which is at variance with the original charge 
without proper opportunity to respond offends due process and 
renders any order or action unsustainable. [Paras 10, 32, 33, 38] 
1.2 Appellants, in their replies to the show cause notices 
categorically demonstrated that they were not required to secure 
45% marks in their intermediate examination – They were required 
to secure more than 40% marks in the intermediate examination, 
which they did secure – However, the respondents terminated 
the appellants’ services by computing their marks after excluding 
the marks secured in the vocational subject without affording the 
appellants notice or an opportunity to contest such exclusion –The 
allegation that the appellants had failed to secure 40% marks 
(after exclusion of marks secured in the vocational subject) in the 
intermediate examination did not even figure as an allegation in 
the show cause notices – Therefore, findings were returned by the 
respondents which were at variance with the allegations levelled 
in the show cause notices. [Paras 32, 36]
1.3 Appellants having successfully defended the allegations, the 
respondents were precluded in law from proceeding with such 
notices – In the absence of fresh show cause notices specifically 
requiring the appellants to explain why the marks secured in the 
vocational subject should not be taken into account for determining 
their overall percentage, the appellants were denied a fair and 
reasonable opportunity of hearing – Moreover, the procedure in r.21 
is only to be used for the purpose of preparation of merit list and r.4 
does not provide for exclusion of marks secured in the vocational 
subject – Judgments of the Division Bench set aside. [Paras 32, 38]
1.4 Appellants to be treated to have been in continuous service from 
the date(s) of their original appointment, as if their services were 
never terminated – Entitled to service benefits like arrears of pay 
in full and seniority counted from the dates of initial appointment – 
However, for the purpose of meeting the experience criterion for 
promotion, the period not spent on duty will not be counted. [Para 39]
1.5 The other appellant (since deceased) shall be deemed to 
have died-in-harness and if there be a scheme for compassionate 
employment, his heirs may apply thereunder. [Para 40]
Jharkhand Primary S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.