The High Court
Case Details
. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 2454 of 2014 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Sukant Kumar Das ...… Petitioner -Versus- Odisha Mining Corporation & Others .... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Pattnaik, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. P.K.Khuntia, Advocate for OMC, Mr. D. Chhotray, Advocate for Private Opposite Party Nos. 4 & 5 _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 29th January, 2025 The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: Page 1 of 9 it to admit “Under this circumstances, is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be this writ graciously pleased application issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the office order dated 12.04.2012 as per Annexure-5 and letter dated 03.08.2012 as per Annexure-7, with a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Teacher (Matric C.T.) from the date of dt. 03.07.1998 as per Annexure-1. office Order/Notification the AND Further be pleased to pass any other order Direction(s) as deemed fit and proper. And For which act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. . 2. The Odisha Mining Corporation (OMC) used to run four schools in its mining area in the district of Jajpur to provide education to the children of its employees. The petitioner having completed BA/B.Ed. applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Matric C.T.) which was lying vacant in Kalarangi U.P. school. On consideration of his application, the petitioner was appointed as such on ad- hoc basis initially on 21.03.1998. He joined in the post on 31.08.1998. Such ad-hoc appointment was continued from time to time till 03.07.1998 when an advertisement Page 2 of 9 was issued by the OMC for recruitment of 3 Assistant Teachers (Matric C.T.) for Kaliapani M.E. School. Claiming that he had worked for more than 10 years, and hence, ought to have been regularized, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 14330 of 1998. By order dated 23.11.2010, a Division Bench of this Court, relying on the ratio decided by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Umadevi & Ors. 1 held that the petitioner having been initially appointed through a selection process and having continued for more than 10 years by the time of publication of the advertisement, should have been considered for regularization against the said post. Accordingly, the writ application was disposed of directing the OMC to regularize the services of the petitioner against the post of Assistant Teacher (Matric, CT) made for UR category. Challenging such order, OMC filed SLP No. 7327 of 2011 before the Apex Court but the same came to be dismissed. Thereafter, on repeated 1 2006 4 SCC 1 Page 3 of 9 representations being submitted by the petitioner, by office order dated 12.04.2012, his services were regularized w.e.f. 23.11.2010. The petitioner however, claims that his services ought to have been regularized w.e.f. the date of advertisement i.e. 03.07.1998 and accordingly, submitted a representation to the authorities. By
Decision
order dated 03.08.2012, his representation was rejected on the ground that his services had already been regularized w.e.f. 23.11.2020. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the OMC, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was initially appointed in Kalarangi U.P. School in the post of Assistant Teacher (Matric, C.T.) on ad-hoc basis on his own request for a period of three months from the date of joining. His name was neither sponsored by the employment exchange nor had he been interviewed for selection to the post on regular basis as per the OMC ( R and P rules) prevalent at the time. His services were discontinued after 89/44 days but he was further re-engaged after break of one day. In the year 1995, the petitioner along with 343 non-regular Page 4 of 9 employees were treated as non-permanent employees w.e.f. 01.01.1995 as per approval of OMC Board. In the year 1998, the petitioner applied for the regular cadre post of Assistant Teacher (MCT), the vacancy of which was notified and applications were invited from the open market. The petitioner had attended the interview but could not succeed. He therefore, filed the writ application before this Court being OJC No. 14330 of 1998, which was disposed of directing his services to be regularized. Further, non-permanent employees and other employees who had joined OMC service without following the recruitment process were decided to be regularized w.e.f. 16.01.2013. The services of 792 such non-regular employees, were regularized. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner also ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 16.01.2013. However, in obedience to the direction of this Court passed in earlier writ application his services were regularized w.e.f. 23.11.2010. His claim for regularization before that date is not tenable. Page 5 of 9 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by private Opposite Parties (Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5). It is their case that both of them were appointed being selected in the due selection process against posts reserved for SEBC and SC. In so far as the regularization of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the petitioners were appointed on 09.11.1999 whereas the petitioner’s services were regularized subsequently. 5. Heard Mr. P.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K.Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for OMC and Mr. D.Chotoray, learned counsel for the private Opposite Party. 5. Mr. Pattnaik would argue that this Court having directed regularization of the services of the petitioner relying on the ratio decided in Umadevi, (supra) notwithstanding the publication of the advertisement dated 03.07.1998, the management ought to have regularized his services at least from the date of the advertisement. Mr. Pattnaik, further argues that the judgment of this Court having been confirmed by the Page 6 of 9 Apex Court, has become final and therefore, regularization ought to have been given effect to retrospective by from the date of the advertisement. 6. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for the OMC on the other hand, submits that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner’s initial appointment was irregular, the OMC management decided sympathetically to regularize his services as a matter of policy taken in respect of 792 nos. of non-permanent employees w.e.f. 16.01.2013. However, the petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 23.11.2010, the same being the date of judgment passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. According to Mr. Khuntia therefore, the claim for regularization prior to the said date is not tenable. 7. Mr. Chotoray, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Parties would submit that they having been appointed after facing a due selection process against notified vacancies, and the petitioner’s services Page 7 of 9 being regularized subsequently, they cannot be dislodged from their position as regards the inter se seniority. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the parties. Though there is an observation by the Division Bench that the petitioner was initially appointed through a selection process, yet fact remains that he was treated as a non-regular employee by the OMC along with 791 other employees. As such, the OMC management decided as a matter of principle to regularize the services of all such employees’ w.e.f. 16.01.2013. So, ordinarily, the petitioner’s services being that of a non-regular employee, also should have been made effective from that date i.e. 16.01.2013. This is being said for all more reason that the petitioner was not able to satisfy that his initial appointment was made after following a due selection procedure. Moreover, the decision of the OMC declaring the petitioner as a non- regular employee, per se, has not been challenged. The OMC management, despite regularizing the services of other non-regular employees (791 nos) w.e.f. 16.01.2013 Page 8 of 9 has given such benefit to the petitioner from an earlier date i.e., from 23.11.2010. This Court is of the view that under such circumstances, the petitioner ought to be satisfied with the benefit given by the OMC management in due deference to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate or justify his claim for regularization from the date of advertisement i.e. 03.07.1998. 9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is unable to accept the claim advanced on behalf of the petitioner for regularization of his services on any date prior to 23.11.2010. 10. Resultantly, the writ application is held to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 04-Feb-2025 19:31:39 Page 9 of 9