The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27103 of 2022 Debasmita Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Dash, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA Mr.S.C. Devdash, Adv. for O.P.5 Mr. S.D. Routray, Adv. for Intervention CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 29.01.2024 I.A No.16376 of 2022 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not want to press this I.A. 3. Accordingly, the I.A. stands dismissed as not pressed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge 05. 1. This is an application filed by one Gitanjali I.A No.17198 of 2022 Mohapatra seeking her intervention in the present writ petition. // 2 // 2. It is contended by Mr. Routray, learned counsel that the Intervenor-Petitioner is continuing as an approved staff as against the 1st post of Lecturer in Anthropology in Sarala Degree Mahavidyalaya, Rahama, Jagatsinghpur. 3. It is contended that if some positive order will be passed in the case of the Petitioner, directing for approval of her services, the Intervenor-Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced as that will affect her continuance in the College. 4. Even though no objection has been filed to the I.A, but learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner is continuing as a Lecturer in Anthropology in the +2 wing of Sarala Mahavidyalaya, Rahama, Jagatsinghpur and her regularization will no way affect the continuance of the Intervenor-Petitioner who is admittedly continuing in the Degree wing with her services being approved as against the Degree wing vide order dtd.23.12.2010. 5. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the Parties, this Court is of the view that Intervenor-Petitioner is not a necessary party nor a proper party to the writ petition.
Decision
6. Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 06. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and W.P.(C) No.27103 of 2022 learned State Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: - “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule nisi to the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause why the impugned order (Annexure-8) shall not be quashed and the petitioner’s services shall not be regularized and she will not be granted the service benefits as a regular management employee and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to make the said rule absolute and quash the impugned order (Annexure-8) and direct the opposite parties, more particularly opposite party No.3, to regularize the services of the petitioner and grant her all service benefits as are granted regular management employees”. the to 3. It is contended that the Petitioner was appointed as a Guest Lecturer in the discipline Anthropology in the +2 wing of Sarala Mahavidyalaya, Rahama vide order dtd.17.11.2011 under Annexure-1-Series. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined as a Guest Lecturer in Anthropology on 18.11.2011 and she was allowed to continue till 31.03.2013 vide different orders issued by Opposite Party No.5. 3.1. It is contended that vide order dtd.23.03.2013 under Annexure-2, appointment of the Petitioner as a Guest Lecturer in the discipline Anthropology in the +2 wing Page 3 of 6 // 4 // was extended w.e.f.01.04.2013 till the post is duly filled up on regular basis. 3.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner in terms of the order under Annexure-2 was allowed to continue as a Guest Lecturer, but the post was not regularly filled up with initiation of any selection process. Taking into account her long continuance as a Guest Lecturer in Anthropology Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.38676 of 2021 claiming therein for her regular appointment as against the post of Lecturer in Anthropology in the +2 wing. This Court vide order dtd.10.12.2021 directed Opposite Party No.5 to consider the claim of the Petitioner for her regularization as against the post of Lecturer in Anthropology in the +2 wing of the College. In terms of the said order, Opposite Party No.5 while considering the claim when rejected the same vide the impugned order dtd.26.07.2022 under Annexure-8, the present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the said order. 3.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1-Series, Petitioner continued as a Guest Lecturer w.e.f. 18.11.2011 till 31.03.2013. Subsequently, in terms of the order issued under Annexure-2, Petitioner is continuing as a Guest Lecturer w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to till date in the discipline Anthropology. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 3.4. It is also contended that till date the post in question has not yet been filled up on regular basis and the Petitioner is continuing as usual as a Guest Lecturer w.e.f. 01.04.2013. 3.5. It is contended that since the Post has not yet been filled up on regular basis and Petitioner is continuing since 2011 as a Guest Lecturer, the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.6. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order be set aside with a direction on Opposite Party No.5 to take effective steps for regular appointment of the Petitioner as a Lecturer in Anthropology in the +2 wing of Sarala Mahavidyalaya, Rahama. 4. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that since the Petitioner was appointed by Opposite Party No.5 which is a recognized aided Educational Institution, it is for the Governing Body to consider the claim of the Petitioner for her regular appointment and State has nothing to with the claim of the Petitioner. 5. Mr. S.C. Devdash, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 on the other hand contended that Petitioner in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1-Series and thereafter in terms of the order issued under Annexure-2 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // is continuing as a Guest Lecturer in the discipline Anthropology w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to till date in the +2 wing of the College. The post has also not been filled up on regular basis by issuing any advertisement to that effect. It is also contended that if necessary direction will be issued for regular appointment of the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.5 has got no objection. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made and the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the view that since Petitioner is continuing as a Guest Lecturer continuously w.e.f.01.04.2013 to till date in the discipline Anthropology, Opposite Party No.5 is directed to provide her appointment on regular basis in the post she is continuing by taking appropriate step in accordance with law. Opposite Party No.5 is directed to do the needful as directed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such appointment of the Petitioner on regular basis, Opposite Party No.5 shall also take step for her approval of the services of the Petitioner in accordance with law, in which case this Court expresses no opinion. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Feb-2024 11:40:32 Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6