The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10560 of 2022 Omkar Prasad Mohapatra &. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Jena, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- &. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 03. ORDER 17.10.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.21.03.2022 so passed by Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected. 4. It is contended that basing on the letter issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 on 10.09.2007 under Annexure-1 and on creation of different posts, which includes one post of Revenue Inspector, an advertisement was issued by Opposite Party No.4 on 25.03.2011 inviting applications to fill up one post of Revenue Inspector along with other posts under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that in terms of the said advertisement issued under Annexure-2 and on coming out successful, Petitioner was // 2 // appointed on contractual basis vide order dtd.10.08.2011 under Annexure-4. In terms of the said order, Petitioner submitted his joining on 10.08.2011 as reflected under Annexure-5. 4.2. It is also contended in the gradation list of contractual employees submitted by the office of Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-6-Series, Petitioner9s name was reflected at Sl. No.4 with his date of joining as 10.08.2011 on contractual basis. 4.3. It is contended that on the face of such selection and appointment on contractual basis w.e.f. 10.08.2011, Petitioner when was not regularized in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 so issued under Annexure-7 and further resolution issued on 16.01.2014 under Annexure-8, Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.31060 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.27.10.2021 directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the Petitioner9s claim, taking into account the decision rendered by the Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner after creation of the post vide letter under Annexure-1 was appointed by facing due recruitment process on contractual basis, taking into account his long continuance, not only his case is covered by the decision of the Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, M.L. Keshari & Amarkanti Ray, but also his claim for regularization is covered as per the Resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexures-7 & 8. But Opposite Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Party No.1 without proper appreciation of the order passed by this Court and the stipulation contained in the Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexures-7 & 8, rejected the Petitioner9s claim vide the impugned order dtd.21.03.2022 under Annexure-12 on the ground that while providing appointment to the Petitioner on contractual basis, ORV Act and Rules was never followed. 4.5.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that since on creation of the post vide Annexure- 1, an advertisement was issued under Annexure-3 and in terms of the said advertisement, Petitioner got the benefit of appointment on contractual basis vide order dtd. 10.08.2011 under Annexure-4, with regard to non-following of the provisions of ORV Act and Rules, no fault can be attributed to the Petitioner. Since Petitioner was duly selected and appointed vide order dtd. 10.08.2011 under Annexure-4 and he is continuing on contractual basis till date, his claim is squarely covered by the stipulation contained in resolution dtd. 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexures-7 & 8. 4.6. It is also contended that for the laches on the part of the Opposite Parties in not following the provisions of ORV Act and Rules while making the selection pursuant to Annexure-3, Petitioner should not be made to suffer and no fault lies with him for such non-
Decision
compliance. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that since at the time of his selection and appointment vide order under Annexure-4, the provisions of ORV Act and Rules was not followed by Opposite Party No.4, in view of the stipulation contained Page 3 of 5 // 4 // in Resolution dtd.16.01.2014 under Annexure-8, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit. 5.1. It is also contended that since Petitioner was initially engaged on contractual basis, the decisions in the case of Uma Devi, M.L. Keshari and Amarkanti Ray are not applicable to the case of the Petitioner. 5.2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Government- Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dtd.10.09.2007 under Annexure-1 created various posts in the Office of Opposite Party No.4, which includes one (1) post of Revenue Inspector. As found after such creation of the posts, an advertisement was issued by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-3, inviting application for different posts, which also includes one post of Revenue Inspector. Pursuant to the said selection process, Petitioner was not only selected but also appointed as a Contractual Revenue Inspector vide order of appointment issued on 10.08.2011 under Annexure-4, where he joined on 10.08.2011 as found from Annexure-5. It is not disputed by the parties that Petitioner since 10.08.2011 is continuing on contractual basis as on date. 6.1. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that if while making the selection pursuant to Annexure-3, provisions of ORV Act and Rules was not followed, no fault lies with the Petitioner and for the same Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, the ground on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. In view of the nature of appointment provided to the Petitioner on contractual basis vide order dtd.10.08.2011 under Annexure-4 against the sanctioned post of Revenue Inspector and by following due procedure of law, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with his appointment. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the ground on which the Petitioner9s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and claim of the Petitioner for his regular absorption is covered by the Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexure-7 & 8. 6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.21.03.2022 so passed by Government- Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-11. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to regularize the services of the Petitioner as against the post of Revenue Inspector with passing of an appropriate order in that regard within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 31-Oct-2025 13:22:02 Page 5 of 5