The High Court · 2021
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch In W.A. No.936 of 2021 Principal Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department and another …. Appellants Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- Niranjan Das and others …. Respondents Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate Mr. Gautam Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.K. Patra, Advocate Mr. K.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Rath, Advocate In W.A. No.983 of 2021 Principal Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department and another …. Appellants Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- Smita Ranjan Sarangi and others …. Respondents None In W.A. No.985 of 2021 Principal Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department and another …. Appellants
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- Ranjita Sahoo and others …. Respondents None W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 1 of 8 In W.A. No.1013 of 2021 Principal Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department and another …. Appellants Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- Kirti Chandra Palai and others …. Respondents Mr. Gopinath Sethi, Advocate and associates In W.A. No.1027 of 2021 Principal Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department and another …. Appellants Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- Manoj Kumar Parhi and others …. Respondents Mr. Gopinath Sethi, Advocate and associates CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN JUDGMENT 15.02.2023 Dr.S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. These writ appeals by the School and Mass Education Department (S & ME Department), Government of Odisha are all directed against a common judgment dated 7th October 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by the respective Respondents seeking a direction to the S & ME Department to regularize their services from the date of their initial joining in the post of Junior Lecturers. W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 2 of 8 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the prayer that they should be regularised from the date of their initial joining as Part Time Lecturers, has directed that their services be regularised from the date of their initial joining as Full Time Resource Persons (FTRPs). 3. The background facts are that pursuant to the National Policy on Education introduced in 1986, 31 Higher Secondary Vocational Schools were opened by the Government of Odisha under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Vocationalisation of Secondary Education” by an order dated 27th July 1988 during the academic session 1988-89. A circular was issued by the Government of Odisha on 17th March 1989 for appointment of a qualified Post Graduate (PG) Teacher against the vacant post of Vocational Teachers (PGT) on contract basis. In the second phase, for the academic year 1990-91, 150 Higher Secondary Vocational Schools were opened. An advertisement was issued on 1st April 1991 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Junior Lecturers in the said vocational institutions. Since this was a centrally sponsored scheme, 75% of the salary payable to the staff was to be reimbursed by the Government of India. Unless the posts were filled up, the Government of Odisha could not claim reimbursement. 4. On 6th June 1996, a gazette notification was issued regarding engagement of Part Time Resource Person (PTRP) in the Higher Secondary Vocational Schools. This was followed on 21st August W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 3 of 8 1996 by another gazette notification regarding Full Time Resource Person (FTRP). 5. The Respondents who were PTRPs continued as such without regularisation as Junior Lecturers. Aggrieved by the failure to regularize their services, the respective Respondents filed OJC No.9392 of 1999 in this Court through an association of such Respondents praying for regularisation of their services. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondents were appointed as FTRPs against the vacant post of Junior Lecturers with effect from 31st January, 2001. 6. OJC No.9392 of 1999 which was pending in this Court was transferred to the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) in the year 2010. By a judgment dated 10th July 2014, the OAT disposed of TA No.15 (C) of 2010 directing the Government of Odisha to regularize the services of the Respondents in view of the order of the OAT in a similar batch of cases. When the said judgment was not implemented, the Respondents filed contempt petition being CP No.543 (C) of 2014. 7. The Government of Odisha in the Higher Education Department did not challenge the above order dated 10th July 2014 of the OAT. After the aforementioned contempt petition was filed, the Government of Odisha on 3rd July 2016 issued orders regularising 201 FTRPs working in different Vocational Junior Colleges and re- designated them as Junior Lecturers with effect from the date of W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 4 of 8 issuance of such order i.e., 3rd July, 2016. While the contempt petition was closed by the OAT, liberty was granted to the Respondents to claim benefits consequent to the order of regularisation in accordance with law. The respective Respondents then filed O.A. No.1074 (C) of 2017 before the OAT praying for regularisation of services from the date of initial appointment against the vacant post of Junior Lecturers. 8. After the abolition of the OAT, the aforementioned application came to be transferred to this Court and was heard by the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned judgment on 7th October 2021 granting notional benefits to each of the Respondents from 31st January 2001which was the date of their appointment as FTRPs against the vacant post of Junior Lecturers. 9. Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the S & ME Department relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Dhyan Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 10 SCC 656 and contends that since the initial appointment of the Respondents as FTRPs was under a centrally sponsored scheme, the State Government cannot be expected to regularise their services from a date earlier than the actual date of regularisation which in this case was 3rd July, 2016. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respective W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 5 of 8 Respondents submit that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge was limited. The regularisation as directed by the learned Single Judge was only on notional basis from the date of the Respondents joining as FTRPs i.e. 31st January 2001 without any consequential monetary benefits. Relying on the decisions in G.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., AIR 1984 (SC) 1527 and S. Sumnyan v. Limi Niri, AIR 2010 (SC) 2159, it is contended that the plea for regularisation from the initial date of joining as FTRPs was not unreasonable and ought to be granted in light of those decisions. 11. The above submissions have been considered. What is evident from the above narration of facts is that each of the Respondents was appointed initially as PTRPs. Although, they claimed benefit of regularization from their initial appointment as PTRPs, the learned Single Judge did not grant them that relief. What was directed to be granted only was regularisation on notional basis, with effect from the date of their appointment as FTRPs i.e. 31st January, 2001. 12. The plea that the Respondents are entitled to regularisation only from the date that they were regularly appointed to the post and not earlier when they were still engaged under a centrally sponsored scheme, cannot ipso facto be applied in the present case considering that the Respondents were, pursuant to selection process appointed as FTRPs with effect from 31st January, 2001. It is for this reason that the relief has been granted by the learned W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 6 of 8 Single Judge limited extent of regularisation of their services with effect from 31st January 2001 the Respondents to a to and not from the date when they were first appointed as PTRPs. 13. The decisions of the Supreme Court in G.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. (supra) and S. Sumnyan v. Limi Niri (supra), support the contention of the Respondents that they were entitled to have their services regularised from the initial date of their joining as FTRPs through a selection process. Considering that the said date of 31st January 2001, from which date they have been asked to be regularised, is only for the notional purpose, length of service, seniority etc. without any consequential monetary benefit, the Court is of the view that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge granting such limited relief does not call for interference. The impugned judgment is also consistent to the law explained by the Supreme Court in G.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. (supra) and S. Sumnyan v. Limi Niri (supra). Such relief can also not be said to be inconsistent with law laid down in Dhyan Singh v. State of Haryana (supra). 14. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, it is directed that orders shall be issued by the S & ME Department by way of implementation of the W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 7 of 8 impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge within four weeks from today. 15. The intervention application of the persons, who were before the learned Single Judge as writ Petitioners, but were not made parties by the S & ME Department in the appeal, have already been allowed by this Court on 23rd September 2022 in W.A. No.936 of 2021. Their cases will also be covered by this judgment. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice Judge (M.S. Raman) S.K. Guin/PA W.A. Nos.936 of 2021 and batch Page 8 of 8