The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.7866 of 2022, 12811 of 2020 & 8778 of 2023 Surekha Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. S. Senapati, Advocate Mr. B.S. Tripathy (1), Advocate in (W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.8778 of 2023) The Director, AHPGIC, Cuttack and Others …. Opposite Parties -versus- Mr. S.K. Padhy, Advocate for O.P. No.1 Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, Advocate for O.P. No.3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.08.2025 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Since the issue involved in the present case is with regard to getting the benefit of appointment as against the post of Social Worker in the establishment of Acharya Harihara Regional Cancer Centre, Cuttack (in short Centre), all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. // 2 // 4. While W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo claiming regularization as against the post of Social Worker and to release the salary in the Scale of Pay prescribed, W.P.(C) No.8778 of 2023 has been filed by the self-same petitioner- Sarmista Sahoo challenging the communication dated 17.03.2023 so issued by the Centre under Annexure-7 with an instruction to the Out Sourcing Agency to withdraw the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo as the contract is going to expire on 17.03.2023. 4.1. W.P.(C) No.7866 of 2022 has been filed by the petitioner-Surekha Nayak inter alia challenging order dated 08.02.2022 so issued under Annexure-6, wherein claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Social Worker pursuant to the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019 under Annexure-2 was dis-allowed.
Legal Reasoning
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo in W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.8778 of 2023, contended that vide letter dated 24.03.2017, petitioner in both the cases were selected for their engagement as against the post of Social Worker through the Out Sourcing Agency namely M/s. Manju Services. 4.3. It is contended that while so continuing as Social Worker through Out Sourcing, an advertisement was Page 2 of 13 // 3 // issued by the Centre on 14.08.2019, inviting applications to fill up various posts on temporary/contractual basis on Out Sourcing basis under the project titled “Hospital Based Cancer Registries and Pattern of Care and Survival Studies on Cancer Breast, Cancer Cervix and Head & Neck Cancers supported by the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research (ICMR). In the said advertisement, 4 (four) posts of Social Worker was also advertised. 4.4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019, petitioners in both the cases, made their applications as against the post of Social Worker. However, on the ground that petitioner is not coming within the age limit so prescribed in the advertisement, her candidature when was rejected, petitioner challenging the same, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23476 of 2019. 4.5. It is contended that in the advertisement, the upper age limit though was prescribed at 32 years but no relaxation was given to women candidates in terms of the provisions contained under OCS(Fixation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1989. 4.6. It is contended that as per the aforesaid Rules, petitioner being a women candidate, she was entitled to Page 3 of 13 // 4 // get the benefit of age relaxation by 5 years. But because of the wrong committed by the Centre in prescribing the upper age limit at 32 years, without providing any relaxation to women candidate in terms of the aforesaid Rule, when her candidature was rejected, the matter was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.23476 of 2019. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 18.11.2019, while disposing the Writ Petition, directed the Collector & D.M., Cuttack to take a decision on the application of the petitioner so available under Annexure-5 and recommended vide Annexure-6. 4.7. It is contended that in terms of the said order, Collector & D.M., Cuttack passed an order on 31.12.2019 with the following direction contained in Para-7 of the said order:- “7. As the director AHRCC has mentioned 30 years in the advertisement as upper age limit for the post of social worker and 32 years as upper age limit under general condition, the advertisement is found to be defective. In this context the AHRCC should undertake the necessary correction in their advertisement to fix a definite upper age limit as the applicant with upper age limit of 32 years and relaxation of 5 years becomes eligible for the said post.” itself in 4.8. It is contended that since in terms of the order passed by this Court, Collector, Cuttack held that fixation of upper age limit at 32 years without giving relaxation by 5 (five) years is a defective one, consequential follow up action should have been taken Page 4 of 13 // 5 // by the Centre. But on the face of the said order, Director of the Centre passed an order on dated 08.02.2022 inter alia holding as follows:- “Whereas the selection of candidate to the post of social worker has been completed. The process of advertisement and selection of the candidate in respect of Social worker and Data entry Operator for HBCR project was completed on 09.12.2019 as per the selection committee proceeding on the same date. to make necessary Whereas it is not possible to comply to direction of Collector the advertisement as process has been fully completed and further interference in the process will invite legal complication. changes to Whereas in the view of the above observation and selection committee meeting proceeding of HBCR project on 09.12.2019. It is hereby decided keep one post reserved for one Sarmistha Sahoo till further direction of Hon’ble High Court.” 4.9. It is contended that subsequent to passing of the order dated 08.02.2022, when the Out Sourcing Agency was requested to withdraw the petitioner from her work as Social Worker vide the impugned communication dated 17.03.2023 under Annexure-7, the matter is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.8778 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2023 also passed an interim order to the effect that, order dated 17.03.2023 shall not be given effect to till the next date. Pursuant to the said interim order, petitioner is continuing as Social Worker through Out Sourcing till date. 4.10. It is contended that by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo in both the cases that Page 5 of 13 // 6 // since she was engaged as Social Worker through Out Sourcing in terms of order dated 24.03.2017 so issued by the Director of the Centre and because of the wrong prescription of upper age limit, she was deprived to participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.08.2019, in view of her continuance in terms of letter dated 24.03.2017, not only she is entitled to get the benefit of absorption as against the said post but also the instruction issued to the Out Sourcing Agency to withdraw the petitioner from her work is not sustainable in the eye of law. Petitioner accordingly is entitled to get the benefit of regularization in her services as against the post of Social Worker. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Surekha Nayak in W.P.(C) No.7866 of 2022 on the other hand contended that the petitioners in both the cases were engaged as Social Worker through Out Sourcing in terms of the letter issued by the Director of Centre on 24.03.2017. While so continuing, in terms of the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019, petitioner in both the cases participated in the selection process and in the said selection as against 4 (four) posts advertised for the post of Social Worker, petitioner was placed at Sl. No.4 of the merit list vide Annexure-3. Page 6 of 13 // 7 // 5.1. It is contended that basing on the select list prepared under Annexure-3 on 09.12.2019, as against 4 (four) posts of Social Worker, though three of the selected candidates placed at Sl. No.1 to 3 were provided with the appointment, but petitioner-Surekha Nayak was not extended with the said benefit because of the challenge made by the Petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo in successive writ petitions. 5.2. It is also contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Cuttack on 31.12.2019 in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo in W.P.(C) No.23476 of 2019, when the Collector held that fixation of upper age limit at 32 years without giving relaxation of 5 years is not just and proper, the Centre while passing the impugned order on 08.02.2022 under Annexure-6, though rejected the claim of petitioner- Sarmista Sahoo, but kept one post vacant because of
Decision
the pendency of the Writ Petition at the instance of the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo. It is contended that taking into account such order passed by the Director of the Centre on 08.02.2022, even though petitioner was duly selected and placed at Sl. No.4 of the merit list issued on 09.12.2019, but she was not provided with the appointment. 5.3. It is also contended that petitioner when was not provided with such appointment, she approached the Page 7 of 13 // 8 // Director of the Centre and thereafter this Court in W.P.(C) No.34863 of 2021. But while considering claim of the petitioner, order dated 08.02.2022 was passed by dis-allowing the petitioner’s claim on the ground that one post of Social Worker has been kept reserved, because of the pendency of the matter at the instance of the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo. 5.4. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner- Sarmista Sahoo was never selected as against the post of Social Worker pursuant to the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019 and petitioner-Surekha Nayak having been placed at Sl. No.4 in the merit list, she is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment. It is also contended that 3 (three) out of the 4 (four) selected candidates since in the meantime have already been provided with the appointment, rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in order dated 08.02.2022 under Annexure-6, is not sustainable in the eye of law and necessary direction be issued to the Director of the Centre to provide appointment to the petitioner as against the said post. 6. Mr. S.K. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for the Centre in all the Writ Petitions on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that pursuant to letter dated 24.03.2017, petitioners in both the cases Page 8 of 13 // 9 // were engaged as Social Worker through Out Sourcing. It is contended that while so continuing basing on the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019, both the petitioners participated in the selection process for the post of Social Worker. 6.1. It is contended that even though petitioner- Sarmista Sahoo was not eligible to participate in the selection process taking into account the upper age limit fixed at 32 years but the centre by allowing 5 years age relaxation not only entertained the application of the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo but also allowed her to participate in the selection process. 6.2. However, petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo failed in the said selection and merit list of 6 (six) candidates was published on 09.12.2019. In the merit list so published petitioner-Surekha Nayak was placed at Sl. No.4. It is contended that since by allowing age relaxation of 5 years, candidature of petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo was entertained and she was allowed to participate in the selection process, after failing in the same, petitioner- Sarmista Sahoo has no further grievance against the Centre. 6.3. It is also contended that even though pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23476 of 2019, the Collector, Cuttack passed an order on 31.12.2019, holding therein that fixation of upper age Page 9 of 13 // 10 // limit at 32 years is not just and proper, but by the time such an order was passed, selection process had already been completed with publication of the merit list on 09.12.2019. 6.4. However, as an abundant precaution and because of the pendency of the Writ Petition as well as interim order passed in the case of Sarmista Sahoo, one post of Social Worker was kept reserved while dis-allowing the claim of the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo vide order dated 08.02.2022. It is however contended that petitioner- Surekha Nayak since has qualified and her name finds place in the merit list published on 09.12.2019 at Sl. No.4, she is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of appointment. 6.5. It is also contended that since petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo was allowed 5 years age relaxation and participated in the selection process, the order passed by the Collector is required to be treated as complied. It is also contended that since petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo is continuing through Out Sourcing all through and she failed to qualify for the post of Social Worker pursuant to advertisement issued on 14.08.2019, she has got no further right of continuance. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioners in both the cases were engaged as Page 10 of 13 // 11 // against the post of Social Worker through Out Sourcing basing on the letter issued by the Director of the Centre on 24.03.2017. It is found that while continuing as such, an advertisement was issued by the Centre on 14.08.2019 to fill up various posts which includes 4 (four) posts of Social Worker. 7.1. As found from the record, in the said selection process as against the post of Social Worker, 6 (six) persons were selected and included in the merit list published on 09.12.2019 and in the said merit list, petitioner-Surekha Nayak is placed at Sl. No.4. It is found from the record that challenging the fixation of upper age limit at 32 years in the advertisement dated 14.08.2019, petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo when approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23476 of 2019 and this Court directed Collector, Cuttack to consider petitioner’s grievance. Collector, Cuttack passed an order on 31.12.2019 inter alia holding that fixation of upper age limit at 32 years without giving relaxation of 5 years to the petitioner being a women candidate is not just and proper. 7.2. Since it is not disputed that petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo by availing age relaxation of 5 years, participated in the selection process as against the post of Social Worker pursuant to advertisement dated 14.08.2019 and she has failed to qualify, it is the view of this Court Page 11 of 13 // 12 // that order dated 31.12.2019 of the Collector stand complied. 7.3. Since pursuant to the advertisement issued on 14.08.2019, petitioner-Surekha Nayak has been selected and placed at Sl. No.4 and out of 4(four) selectees, persons placed at Sl. No.1, 2 and 3 have already got the benefit of appointment, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide order dated 08.02.2022 so passed by the Director of the Centre as per the considered view of this Court, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.4. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 08.02.2022 so passed by the Director of Centre. While quashing the said order, this Court directs the Director of the Centre to provide appointment to the petitioner-Surekha Nayak as against the post of Social Worker taking into account her position in the merit list so published on 09.12.2019. This Court directs the Director of the Centre to issue such an order within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-Sarmista Sahoo in W.P.(C) No.12811 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.8778 of 2023. While not inclined to entertain the same, this Court only observe that she may be allowed to continue Page 12 of 13 // 13 // as against any vacant post, if available in the Centre and she is otherwise eligible. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed in other connected matters listed today. (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: 18-Aug-2025 18:39:38 Page 13 of 13