A Suitability Test Framed Without Sanction Cannot End Anyone's Service
Contractual Court Managers in Odisha's courts were let go after failing a suitability test. The High Court has found the test itself was never properly authorised.
The Court held that the modalities for the test were prepared by a committee without the concurrence of the Chief Justice or the Full Court, so the process was legally unsustainable. The Court Managers were also dropped in the middle of an extended contract, without notice. The disengagement was quashed, they were continued with arrears, and any fresh assessment must follow modalities approved by the High Court — with no automatic regularisation.
- Who approves the test matters. A committee's own rules, without the Chief Justice or Full Court, were not enough.
- A contract cannot be cut short on a void test — their extended term still had months to run.
- No automatic regularisation. Suitability must still be judged, this time by an authorised process.
- Those already absorbed keep their posts; the ruling does not unsettle them.
- Court
- High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
- Bench
- Justice MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, Justice MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
- Citation
- W.P.(C) No. 3163 of 2022 and connected petitions
- Case
- W.P.(C) No. 3163 of 2022 and connected petitions
- Decided
- 11 September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petitions disposed of; disengagement quashed, arrears and fresh authorised assessment directed
The Court Managers
Thirty-one Court Managers worked on contract in the Orissa High Court and district courts. When regular posts were created under the 2020 rules, the existing Court Managers were assessed for continued utility and suitability for absorption.
The assessment, held in August 2022, combined a project exercise, an office note, an interview and performance reports. Eleven were found suitable and absorbed; the rest were disengaged by an order at the end of August 2022.
Yet in August 2022 the State Home Department had extended all 31 contracts for six months from 18 July 2022, or until the posts were filled regularly, whichever came first.
Why the test could not stand
Examining the records, the Division Bench found that the modalities for the assessment had been prepared by the committee itself and did not have the concurrence of the Chief Justice or the Full Court.
Once the assessment process suffered from that infirmity, the Court declined to examine each petitioner's marks in the written work or interview; that would mean assessing suitability on a methodology already found unsustainable. It stressed it was not holding them suitable, only that suitability must be decided by a legally authorised process.
Separately, the disengagement came during the extended contractual tenure, not at its natural end, and without any notice. It was therefore illegal.
The directions
The notices, results and disengagement order were quashed as regards the petitioners. They stand continued on their earlier contractual terms until their extension would have run, and are entitled to their contractual remuneration for that period — which the Court clarified is not arrears of regularisation.
The Registrar General must place the matter before the High Court on its administrative side, so that modalities in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in All India Judges Association can be framed and approved. Only then may a fresh assessment be held.
Continuation does not mean automatic absorption, and the eleven already absorbed are not affected.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can a suitability test framed without proper approval be used to end service?
No. The Court quashed a test whose modalities lacked the approval of the Chief Justice or the Full Court.
Does winning mean automatic regularisation?
No. The Court directed a fresh, authorised assessment instead.
If you are dropped after a suitability test
- Ask who framed the test's modalities, and who approved them.
- Check whether your contract had been extended beyond the date you were let go.
- Note whether you received any notice before disengagement.
- Seek continuation and remuneration for the unexpired term, not only a retest.
Source. High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No. 3163 of 2022 and connected petitions, decided 11 September 2026 by Justice MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, Justice MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Orissa at Cuttack and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in