The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7189 of 2020 Anupama Swain …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. A. Pal, Advocate for OUAT CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 20.02.2025 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for OUAT. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- justice, to admit “It is, therefore, prayed that in the this Hon’ble Court may interest of this writ graciously be pleased application, issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why the letter dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure-12) issued by the Opposite letter dtd.24.02.2020 party no.3 and (Annexure-13) issued by the opp. Party no.1 shall not be quashed declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary and as to why the opposite party no.3 & 4 shall not be directed to regularize the service of the // 2 // the petitioner w.e.f. 29.9.2018 as per the letter dtd.16.08.2017, 7.9.019 and 18.11.2019 of the opposite party no.1. And as to why the opp. Party no.3 and 4 shall not be directed to allow the petitioner to work as Field Supervisor on regular basis.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that in terms of the advertisement issued by the Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (in short “OUAT”) on 30.06.2012 under Annexure-1, petitioner on being duly selected was appointed as Field Supervisor in the department of Comprehensive Scheme, OUAT, Bhubaneswar on contractual basis vide office order dated 21.09.2012 under Annexure-2. 4.1. It is further contended that such appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis was extended from time to time vide different orders issued under Annexure-3 series. It is also contended that while so continuing vide office order dated 16.01.2015 under Annexure-4, such contractual employees including the petitioner was extended with the grade pay as due and admissible. 4.2. It is also contended that while so continuing on contractual basis, basing on the initial order of appointment issued on 21.09.2012, Govt. in the department of Agriculture and Farmers Empowerment vide letter dated 16.01.2017 accorded post facto approval for engagement of 87 nos. of contractual employees in OUAT working against the regular Page 2 of 9 // 3 // sanctioned post. In the said communication dated 16.08.2017, petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.27 with his date of appointment as 29.09.2012 and date of completion of 6 years of service as 28.09.2018. 4.3. It is contended that on the face of such approval accorded by the Govt. under Annexure-5 and without taking step for regularization of the services of the petitioner, the University by wrong interpretation of an interim order passed by this Court on 14.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No.17924 of 2012 vide letter dated 24.04.2019 under Annexure-6 series moved the Govt. seeking clarification with regard to regular appointment of the petitioner in terms of the approval accorded vide Annexure-5. 4.4. Similar communications were also made seeking clarification by the University on dtd.07.09.2019 under Annexure-7, on dtd. 30.09.2019 under Annexure-8 and 18.11.2019 under Annexure-9. It is however contended that while seeking such clarification from the Govt. with regard to regularization of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-5, petitioner was not allowed to discharge her duty w.e.f. October, 2019. However, it is contended that in the meantime, interim order passed on 14.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No.17924 of 2012 since was vacated, the University vide letter dated 09.12.2019 under Annexure-12 requested the Govt. to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post in question. Page 3 of 9 // 4 // 4.5. However, on the face of such letter issued by the University on 09.12.2019 under Annexure-12, approval accorded in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 16.08.2017 under Annexure-5 was withdrawn by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 vide the impugned communication dated 24.02.2020 under Annexure-13. It is contended that the University initially committed the wrong by issuing letters under Annexure-6 series to Annexure-9, seeking clarification with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioner on the face of approval accorded by the Govt. under Annexure-5. 4.6. It is also contended that by the time such an interim order was passed by this Court on 14.10.2014, basing on which Annexure-6 letter was issued, petitioner had already been appointed vide order dated 21.09.2012 under Annexure-2 series. Therefore, basing on the interim order passed on 14.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No.17924 of 2012, no such letter could have been issued by the University vide Annexure-6 to Annexure- 9 seeking clarification from the Govt. with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-5. It is further contended that even though taking into account the vacation of the interim order, the University requested the Govt. to take step for regularization of the services of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-5 vide Annexure-12, but without proper appreciation of the said communication, Govt.-O.P. No.1 cancelled the approval accorded in favour of the Page 4 of 9 // 5 // petitioner vide Annexure-5 vide the impugned communication dated 24.02.2020 under Annexure-13. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that petitioner is not only eligible and entitled to continue in her services from where she has been illegally prevented w.e.f. October, 2019 but also she is entitled to get the benefit of regularization in terms of Annexure-5. It is also contended that by the meantime petitioner was so prevented from discharging her duty w.e.f. October, 2019, as reflected in Annexure-5, petitioner had already been completed 6 (six) years of regular services on contractual basis. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to the University to allow the petitioner to discharge her duty and to regularize her services in terms of Annexure-5 with quashing of the letter issued by the Govt. on 24.02.2020 under Annexure-13. 5. Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that taking into account the continuance of the petitioner on contractual basis w.e.f. 29.09.2012, though Govt. accorded the post facto approval for such engagement on contractual basis working against regular sanctioned posts, but taking into account the communication made by the University under Annexure-6 to 9 as well as Annexure- 12 and the interim order passed by this Court on 14.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No.17924 of 2012. Govt. thought Page 5 of 9 // 6 // it proper that petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of Annexure-5 and accordingly permission so accorded in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-5 was cancelled vide Annexure-13. 6. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that petitioner since was appointed in terms of the Advertisement dated 30.06.2012 so issued under Annexure-1, which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.17924 of 2012, taking into account the nature of interim order passed on 14.10.2014 and on the face of approval accorded in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-5, the University sought for clarification from the Govt. O.P. No.1 vide Annexure-6 to 9. 6.1. On the face of such request made seeking clarification, no clarification was issued by the Govt. at any point of time. Accordingly, in absence of any such clarification petitioner was not allowed to discharge her duty w.e.f October, 2019. However, taking into account the vacation of the interim order passed by this Court on 14.10.2014, Annexure-12 letter was issued with a request to the Govt. to take step for regularization of the services of the petitioner. But since approval accorded by the Govt. in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-5 was cancelled vide the impugned order Page 6 of 9 // 7 // dated 24.02.2020 under Annexure-13, the University has no other option than not to allow the petitioner to continue w.e.f. October, 2019. It is accordingly contended that the University has not committed any wrong, which requires interference of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner in terms of the advertisement issued on 30.06.2012 under Annexure-1 by the University, was appointed as against the post of Field Supervisor on contractual basis vide order dated 21.09.2012 under Annexure-2 where she joined on 29.09.2012. As found, petitioner was allowed to continue on such contractual basis with passing of different orders under Annexure- 3 series as well as Annexure-4 office order dated 16.01.2015. 7.1. It is also found that Govt.-O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 16.01.2017 accorded post facto approval for such engagement of 87 nos. of contractual employees in the University against regular sanctioned post and in the said communication under Annexure-5, petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.27. On the face of such approval accorded by the Govt., petitioner was not regularized because of the communications issued by the University under Annexure-6 to 9 taking into account interim order passed by this Court on 14.10.2014 in W.P.(C) No.17924 of 2012. Page 7 of 9 // 8 // 7.2. Since it is not disputed in the bar that such an interim order was vacated by this Court and after such vacation of the interim order, University vide letter dated 09.12.2019 under Annexure-12 though requested the Govt. to take step for regularization of the services of the petitioner but without considering the same, the impugned communication dated 24.02.2020 under Annexure-13 was issued by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 cancelling the approval so accorded in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-5. 7.3. Considering the materials available on record and the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner under annexure-2 prior to passing of the interim order by this Court on 14.10.2014, it is the view of this Court that no such clarification could have been sought for by the University vide Annexure-6 to 9. 7.4. Be that as it may since after vacation of the interim order, the University requested the Govt. to take steps for regularization of the services of the petitioner, on the face of such communication under Annexure-12, Annexure-13 letter could not have been issued by the Govt. on 24.02.2020 cancelling the approval so accorded in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-5. Therefore, this Court while quashing the communication dated 24.02.2020 issued by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-13, direct the University to allow the petitioner to continue with her services with passing of Page 8 of 9 // 9 // an appropriate order in that regard within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7.5. Since this Court has quashed Annexure-13 and by the time Annexure-5 was issued, petitioner had already completed six (6) years of service on contractual basis without any break, the University is further directed to take appropriate step for regularization of the services of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-5. Such a decision be also taken within a period of 3(three) months from the date of re- engagement of the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:03:50 Page 9 of 9