Orissa High Court
Manoranjan Patnaik vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 19 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OA) No. 479 of 2014
Manoranjan Patnaik ..... Petitioner
Mr. Ajit Rath, Advocate
- Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties
Mr. N.K. Praharaj,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
19.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Rajib Rath, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel for
the State.
3. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks
direction to the opposite parties to regularize him in the post of
Forester from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 22.08.1984
4. Mr. Rajib Rath, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on
ad hoc basis as Forester in the year 1981 against training
vacancy of one K.K. Dandasena and, thereafter, his service was
terminated. Subsequently, he was appointed as Forester on
22.08.1984 temporarily against the transfer vacancy of one
Jaladhar Swain, Forester, but till date his service has not been
regularized. Seeking similar relief, he had approached the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1306 of 1993,
which was disposed of vide order dated 09.02.1999. By the said
order, the tribunal observed that the appointment of the
petitioner was not regularized and there is no dispute that he is
still continuing as an ad hoc employee. But, merely on account of
length of service rendered, his service cannot be regularized.
However, as per the dictum of the apex Court, he should be
directed to continue in the post until regular recruitment is made
by holding a recruitment test in accordance with the rules. By
observing so, the tribunal directed that the petitioner shall be
given an opportunity to compete with other candidates in the
recruitment test, if held at any time, and the age limit of the
petitioner shall be relaxed, if at the time of entry into service he
was within the prescribed age limit. In compliance of the said
order of the tribunal, the petitioner appeared in the selection
process, but as his name did not find place in the select list, he
filed O.A. No.479 of 2014, which has been transferred to this
Court, on abolition of the tribunal, and registered as WPC (OA)
No. 479 of 2014.
5. Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the State contented that the contention raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner has no substance, in view of the fact that order
of the tribunal passed on 09.02.1999 in O.A. No. 1306 of 1993
has been complied with and, as such, the petitioner was called
upon to appear in the selection test, but he could not come out
successful, therefore, he cannot claim for regularization. More
so, it is contended that representation of the petitioner for
regularization has been rejected vide order dated 11.07.2012 and
till date the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner
by filing a properly constituted application.
6. Considering the rival contentions raised by learned counsel
for both parties and after going through the records, this Court
finds that the petitioner was initially appointed as Forester on ad
hoc basis against training vacancy of K.K. Dandasena, Forester,
vide office order dated 31.03.1981, and his service was
terminated vide office order dated 17.03.1982. Again, he was
appointed on ad hoc basis against leave vacancy of R.N. Swain,
Lac Demonstrator, vide office order dated 12.09.1983, and he
continued in the said post till joining of R.N. Swain, Lac
Demonstrator, i.e., on 22.12.1983. He was once again appointed
temporarily as Forester, vide office order dated 22.12.1984,
against transfer vacancy of Jaladhar Swain Forester, with the
condition that the appointment is purely temporary and
terminable at any time without notice and assigning any reason
thereof. Thereafter, the petitioner is continuing as such. As per
the terms and conditions of the appointment, the petitioner's
appointment is purely temporary and not in accordance with
Odisha Sub-Ordinate Forest Service (Method of Recruitment and
Condition of Service of Foresters) Rules, 1998. Thereby, the
question of regularization, which is de horse the rules, does not
arise.
7. In any case, the petitioner had earlier approached the
tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1306 of 1993, which was disposed of
vide order dated 09.02.1999, directing the opposite parties to give
the petitioner an opportunity to compete with other candidates in
the recruitment test for the post of Forester held during the year
2010 giving relaxation of age limit. In pursuance of the said order
of the tribunal, though the petitioner was allowed to participate
in the recruitment test conducted for the post of Forester, but he
did not qualify due to lack of requisite physical standard.
Therefore, since the case of the petitioner has been considered in
compliance of the direction given by the tribunal and he could
not qualify the selection test, the question of his regularization
does not arise at this stage.
8. Even though the petitioner has rendered service for a quite
long period, but the judgments of the apex Court in Secretary,
State of Karnatak v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of
Karnatak v. M.L. Keshari, 2010 (II) OLR SC 482 and
Amarkanti Ray v. State of Bihar in Civil Appeal No. 2835 of
2015 do not apply to the petitioner. The said cases could have
been applied to the petitioner, had the petitioner been continuing
against sanctioned post and rendered service continuously for
more than ten years. As such, in view of the subsequent
judgment of the apex Court, ten years period has to be computed
till the judgment in Umadevi (supra) was rendered. As it
appears, the petitioner has not made out a case in his favour in
the light of the judgments mentioned above.
9. For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any
merit in this case, which is accordingly dismissed.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
GDS
JUDGE
