The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.29147, 28805, 29151, 30095, 30098 & 30100 of 2022 Snigdha Dash …. Petitioner Mr. G.K. Nanda, Advocate Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate (in W.P.(C) No.28805 of 2022) -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. A. Pal, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 and 3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 24.01.2025 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Since the issue in all these Writ Petitions are identical, all the matters were heard analogously and
Decision
disposed of by the present common order. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Claim of the petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions for regularization of their services has been rejected by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 vide order dated 18.10.2022. // 2 // 4.1 It is contended that basing on the advertisement issued by the University-O.P. Nos.2 and 3 on 22.10.2014 under Annexure-1, all the petitioners faced the selection process and after coming out successful, were appointed as Laboratory Assistants and/or Demonstrators vide office order dated 24.11.2014 on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration. Such order of engagement issued in favour of the petitioners was extended from time to time vide different office orders issued on 27.11.2015 and 22.04.2016 under Annexure-3 and further orders passed in that regard. 4.2. It is contended that while extending the engagement of the present petitioners vide office order dated 27.11.2015, it was clearly indicated that petitioners were engaged on contractual basis against sanctioned vacant post. It is contended that since petitioners were allowed to continue on contractual basis in terms of office order dated 24.11.2014, they became eligible to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the Resolution issued by the Finance Department on 17.01.2014. But their claim for regularization when was not considered, they approached the University and the University vide letter dated 24.12.2021 recommended the claim of the petitioners for their regularization to O.P. No.1. O.P. No.1 however vide the impugned communication dated 28.10.2022 under Annexure-6, rejected the claim inter alia on four different grounds:- Page 2 of 7 // 3 // “1. Prior concurrence of Finance Department has not been taken before engagement of these contractual employees. 2. Such contractual appointments have been made through walk-in-interviews. 3. Prior approval of Department/Administrative Department appointment has not been taken. Finance for such 4. Guidelines GA&PG Department Resolutions have not been properly followed while making such engagements.” enumerated in 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the petitioners were all engaged on contractual basis against vacant sanctioned post as found from office order dated 27.11.2015, under Annexure-3 and they are so engaged by facing due recruitment process in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on 14.10.2014, the ground on which claim of the petitioners was rejected vide the impugned communication dated 18.10.2022 under Annexure-6 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.4. It is also contended that on the face of the interim order passed by this Court all the petitioners are continuing on contractual basis as on date. It is also contended that on the face of the interim order passed, when petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29147 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.29152 of 2022 were terminated from their services, the same was challenged in W.P.(C) No.30095 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.30100 of 2022 and in terms of the further interim order passed, order of termination so passed has been kept in abeyance. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 4.5. It is however contended that all the petitioners are continuing on contractual basis as on date w.e.f their initial order of engagement, issued on 24.11.2014 under Annexure-2. 5. Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand does not dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that all of them were engaged on contractual basis basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 and order of appointment issued vide office order dated 24.11.2014. It is also not disputed that all the petitioners are continuing as against the vacant sanctioned post on contractual basis. 5.1. It is also contended that when petitioners raised their claim for regularization in terms of the resolution issued by the Finance Department on 17.01.2014, their claim was favourably recommended vide letter dated 24.12.2021. But on the ground that no prior concurrence has been taken by the University from the Finance Department to fill up the post on contractual basis, such request of the University was rejected with passing of the impugned communication dated 18.10.2022 under Annexure-6. 5.2. It is however contended that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court all the petitioners are continuing on contractual basis as on date. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 5.3. Learned counsel appearing for the University also fairly contended that if any person is appointed against sanctioned vacant post, no prior permission is required to be taken from the Govt. to fill up the post in question. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate placing reliance on the counter affidavit contended that since prior to the appointment of the petitioners, O.P. No.2-University never obtained permission from the Department, which is a requirement to get the benefit of regularization, claim of the petitioners was not considered and accordingly rejected vide the impugned communication dated 18.10.2022 under Annexure-6. It is also contended that since petitioners were engaged by facing walk-in- interview, they are not otherwise eligible to get the benefit of regularization. 6.1. It is accordingly contended that even though the University recommended the claim of the petitioners vide letter dated 24.12.2021, but since their claim does not come within the purview of the Notification dated 17.01.2014 so issued by the General Administration Department under Annexure-5, claim of the petitioners was rejected. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made and the materials placed before this Court, it is found that for engagement as against the post of Laboratory Assistants and/or Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Demonstrators on contractual basis, the University issued the advertisement on 14.10.2014 under Annexure- 1. In terms of the said advertisement and on being recommended by the selection committee, all the petitioners were appointed as against the post of Laboratory Assistants and/or Demonstrators vide office order dated 24.11.2014 under Annexure-2. 7.1. However, while extending such engagement on contractual basis, vide order dated 27.11.2015 under Annexure-3, all the petitioners were shown to have been engaged against sanctioned vacant post. As found, claim of the petitioners to get the benefit of regularization was favourably recommended by the University vide letter dated 24.12.2021. But on the ground that prior concurrence of the Finance Department has not been taken before such engagement of the petitioners and the petitioner having been engaged by facing Walk-in- Interview, such claim so recommended by the University was rejected by the O.P. No.1 vide the impugned communication dated 18.10.2022 under Annexure-6. 7.2 Since as contended by the learned counsel for the University that for appointment as against vacant sanctioned post, no prior permission is required to be taken and as found from the orders available under Annexure-3, all the petitioners were engaged against sanctioned vacant post on contractual basis, as per the considered view of this Court, the ground taken by the Page 6 of 7 // 7 // O.P. No.1 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law. 7.3. In the counter affidavit so filed by O.P. No.1, no document has also been enclosed showing that for appointment/engagement against vacant sanctioned post, any prior permission is required to be taken by the University from the Govt. In absence of any such document enclosed to the counter affidavit, this Court is unable to accept the contention raised in the counter affidavit. 7.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection so available vide the impugned communication dated 18.10.2022 under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court directs O.P. No.1 to regularize the services of the petitioners with passing of appropriate orders in that regard, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. Order of dismissal/termination which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.30095 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.30100 of 2022 also stands quashed. 8. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly stands disposed of. Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Jan-2025 16:17:57 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 7 of 7