The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). Nos. 18708, 23381, 18777,18902 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) In W.P.(C).No. 18708 of 2024 Mrunalini Mallick ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties In W.P.(C).No. 23381 of 2024 Sandhyarani Das ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties In W.P.(C).No. 18777 of 2024 --------------- Ullash Chandra Mallik ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties In W.P.(C).No. 18902 of 2024 Suchitra Mallick ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties Page 1 of 8 _____________________________________________ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.Nath, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate for the State. _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 05.04.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. All these writ applications involve identical facts and being together, are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All these petitioners had applied for engagement as Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak (SSS) pursuant to advertisement issued on 25.03.2003. Their names did not figure in the merit list published on 31.07.2003 and 13.08.2003 for which they could not be engaged. 2.1 On 26.09.2003, as per instructions issued by the Secretary to Government in the Department of School and Mass Education, the District Collectors, prepared Page 2 of 8 list of eligible candidates for recruitment of 15682 SSS, out of the pending applications received pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2003. The petitioners’ names found place in the merit list and accordingly, they were selected. Subsequently, engagement orders being issued, all of them joined as Sikhya Sahayaks (SS) in different schools. 2.2 The decision of the Government taken on 26.09.2003 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C). No. 11748 of 2003 (Hrushikesh Bindhani and others Vrs. State of Odisha). This Court, by order dated 29.04.2004 quashed the order dated 26.09.2003 by holding that engagement of SSS without advertisement was null and void and further direction was issued to make fresh advertisement. Accordingly, the Government took steps for disengagement of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons. 2.3 The petitioners approached this Court in writ applications as also before the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal and were protected by interim orders. As such, they have continued till date. In the Page 3 of 8 meantime, the judgment of this Court in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) was confirmed by the Supreme Court by order dated 16.08.2013 in SLP(C) No. 4741 of 2007. 2.4 The petitioners submitted representations ventilating their grievance before the Secretary, Department of School and Mass Education. The original applications filed by the petitioners being subsequently
Decision
transferred to this Court were disposed of with direction to the Secretary of the Department to consider their representations. 2.5 By order dated 04.07.2024, the Secretary, after taking note of all the relevant facts rejected the representations on the ground that engagement of the petitioners being after 26.09.2003 has already been declared null and void by this Court in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) as well as Sushil Mohapatra v. State of Odisha and Others (W.P(C). No. 1751 of 2012). 2.6 Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed these writ applications basically with prayer to direct the Opposite Party authorities to regularize their services. Page 4 of 8 3. The stand of the State is that the petitioners admittedly having been appointed in the second phase selection pursuant to order dated 26.09.2003 of the Government cannot be said to have accrued any right as such engagement was held null and void by this Court in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra). Further, in case of Sushil Mohapatra (supra), the same principle was reiterated. As regards the claim of the petitioners of having rendered service for more than 20 years. It is stated that the same being on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court as well as the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal cannot enure to their benefit. 4. Heard Mr. S.K.Nath, learned counsel appearing for all the petitioners and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioners could not come out successful in the selection held pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.03.2003. They were selected in the second phase on the basis of the order dated 26.09.2003. Said order was quashed by this Court in Page 5 of 8 Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) and the engagements made in pursuance thereof were held to be null and void as no advertisement had been issued by the authorities before such selection. This Court, in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) though permitted persons like the petitioners to participate in the fresh selection process yet they could not be successful. Thus, their initial engagement cannot be treated as valid in any manner. They have continued for more twenty years on the strength of interim orders passed by this Court as well as the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Notwithstanding, such continuance, in view of the ratio decided in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) and as followed in subsequent decisions, the engagement of the petitioners cannot be treated as valid in any manner. Under such circumstances, rejection of their representations by the Secretary of the department cannot be faulted with in any manner. 6. Be that as it may, fact remains that the petitioners have rendered continuous service for more than 20 years to the State. Viewed differently, the State has Page 6 of 8 utilized the services of the petitioners for all these years. It is stated at the bar that almost all the petitioners have become age-barred for any public employment. Therefore, throwing them out of employment at this stage of their lives would seriously prejudice them. It is also stated at the bar that large number of vacancies still exist in equivalent posts such as Junior Teacher (schematic). Persons engaged in the first phase pursuant to the original advertisement have in the meantime, become regular teachers. This Court is fully conscious that the petitioners’ cannot claim parity with them but then, the fact that their services have been utilized by the State for more than two decades, their plight cannot be ignored altogether. It must be remembered that in a welfare State like India, the State being a benevolent and model employer can always come forward to protect the rights of its citizens particularly, those affecting their right to livelihood. Thus, while this Court refrains from issuing any mandamus directing the authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner, it can certainly direct the Page 7 of 8 authorities to take a sympathetic view in respect of these persons by considering to regularize their services against the available vacancies, at least prospectively. 7. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is disposed of by directing the State authorities to sympathetically consider the cases of the petitioners and to take a decision regarding regularization of their services at least prospectively without any financial benefits for the past period of engagement. A decision in this regard shall be taken within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 05-Apr-2025 14:56:37 Page 8 of 8