All Odisha Govt. I.T.I vs Director General Of
2021 Latest Caselaw 11605 Ori

                ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

                    WPC (OAC) No.2480 of 2015
                              And
                    WPC (OAC) No.3237 of 2016

      In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227
      of the Constitution of India.
                              ---------------

AFR In WPC (OAC) No.2480 of 2015

All Odisha Govt. I.T.I. ...... Petitioners Part-Time Guest Instructor's Association & Ors.

-Versus-

      Director General of               .....      Opp. Parties
      Employment & Training,
      Ministry of Labour &
      Employment, Govt. of India & Ors.

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate, appearing along with M/s.S.K. Samal, S.P. Nath, S.D. Routray & B.R. Pattnayak, Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Standing Counsel (Opp. Parties no.2 & 3)

In WPC (OAC) No.3237 of 2016

All Odisha Govt. I.T.I. ...... Petitioners Part-Time Guest Instructors' Association & Ors.

// 2 //

-Versus-

           State of Orissa & Ors.                  .....         Opp. Parties


              For Petitioners     : Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate,
                                    appearing along with Mr. S. Das,
                                    R.P. Dalai, K. Mohanty, S. Jena,
                                    S.K. Samal, S.P.Nath &
                                    S.D. Routray, Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Standing Counsel (Opp. Parties no.1 & 2)

Mr. S.S. Pradhan, Advocate (O.Ps. No.3 & 4)

M/s. B.S. Tripathy-1, A. Tripathy & Amit Sahoo, Advocates (O.Ps. No.5-27)

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI

Date of hearing : 01.11.2021::Date of judgment : 12.11.2021

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. Of the two writ petitions, as mentioned above,

WPC (OAC) No.2480 of 2015, in which petitioners are 4 in

number, has been filed for the following relief:-

// 3 //

"a) Admit the original application,

b) Call for the records,

c) After hearing the parties direct the respondents to regularize the services of PTGIs, who are members of the applicants association working in different Government ITI against the post of ATOs and also extend the service benefit of regular ATOs from the date of their respective engagement and the period of service they have rendered as PTGIs may be counted for all purposes.

d) The action of the respondents in making the advertisement and consequently giving appointment to the freshers against the post of ATOs on contractual basis without regularizing the services of the applicants against such posts be declared to be invalid and inoperative in the eye of law;

e) And/or pass such other order(s) or direction (s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper."

And WPC(OAC) No.3237 of 2016, in which petitioners are

eight in number, has been preferred seeking following relief-:

           (i)     Admit the original application
           (ii)    Call for the records;

(iii) Quash the impugned advertisement dated 17.08.2016 issued by respondent No.3 under Annexure-17 series published in the daily newspaper dated 20.08.2016 as well as in the website and the respondents be directed to act in terms of the direction passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in earlier O.A. No.3058 (C) of 2013, and further the Respondents be directed to regularize the services of members of the Applicant association and till such regularization the members of the Applicant association be allowed to continue as PTGI against the vacant post contractual ATO.

(iv) And pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper for the ends of justice."

// 4 //

2. In both the writ petitions, relief sought by the

petitioners being similar to each other, they were heard

together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The backdrop of the case, in brief, is that the All

Odisha Govt. I.T.I. Part-Time Guest Instructors' Association

is a registered association of the part-time Guest Instructors ,

who are working at various Govt. I.T.Is of the State, having

registration No.991-CTC dated 28.05.2012 and its registered

office at Plot No.61, Road No.3, Gongotri Nagar,

Suishupalgarh Chhak, Bhubaneswar. The aims and objects of

the association is to unite and organize, on all Odisha basis,

all I.T.I. Guest Instructors employed directly in Gov t. I.T.Is

in the State of Odisha to guard, protect and further extent the

legitimate interests, rights and earning of the instructors

relating to their employment and service conditions in

general and to fight against all sorts of attacks on job // 5 //

security, existing employment and employment opportunity

besides others.

3.1. All the Govt. I.T.Is of the State are being run by

the Training Officers and Asst. Training Officers, being

appointed by the Govt. In I.T.I., in respect of various trades,

one Training Officer is working and under the said Training

Officer so many Asst. Training Officers are working.

Training officers are appointed, as per the requirement,

taking into the units of the said trade/trades. But, it was not

possible on the part of the Government to appoint the

required number of regular Training Officers or Asst.

Training Officers by following due procedure of law. For

smooth and effective functioning of the Govt. I.T.Is and

I.T.I.(W) in the State, decision was taken by the Govt. to

engage Asst. Training Officers/part-time Guest Instructors on

contractual basis.

// 6 //

3.2. The Director General of Education and Training

is authorized to decide what qualification a candidate has to

possess for engagement as Asst. Training Officer/ part-time

Guest Instructors on contractual basis in Govt. I.T.Is, their

remuneration, mode of selection etc. Consequentially, the

part-time Guest Instructors were engaged with meager

amount of Rs.5/- per hour of practical classes, which was

enhanced to Rs.7.50 in the year 1993. Subsequently, there

was change of mode of selection and remuneration of the

part-time Guest Instructors. Thereby, notification was issued

facilitating the process of disbursement of their salaries and

since 1996, the hourly remuneration was enhanced to Rs.25/-

. The Director of Technical Education and Training

(DTE&T), being the administrative authority of the I.T.Is of

the State, directed the Principals of all the I.T.Is of the State

to engage part-time Guest Instructors on hourly remuneration

basis and in the said order, it was mentioned that no formal // 7 //

order of appointment shall be issued in favour of the part-

time Guest Instructors, but the panel of skilled persons to be

engaged as part-time Guest Instructors must be prepared and

approved by the Institute Management Committee at the

beginning of each training session and the engagement of

part-time Guest Instructors shall be approved by the said

Institute Management Committee. The members of the

petitioner association, after completion of their respective

I.T.I. training and acquiring other required qualifications

from different institutions, were selected and given

engagement as part-time Guest Instructors and have been

continuing in their respective institutions for more than 22

years.

3.3. As per guideline issued by the authority, the part-

time Guest Instructors engagement shall be valid up to the

end of February every year and shall be renewed w.e.f. 1st

March of every year subject to their satisfactory // 8 //

performance. The candidates selected to be engaged as part-

time Guest Instructors get their remuneration drawn against

the contractual post created for such institutions. As per the

eligibility criteria, the candidate must be a citizen of India

having capability to speak, read and write Oriya and must

have passed H.S.C. examination with Oriya as a subject up to

M.E. standard. So far as technical qualification is concerned,

the candidate must have possessed N.T.C./N.A.C. for the

relevant trades. Preference shall be given to the N.T.C.

holder with diploma. The candidate should be within the age

group of 18-40. So far as remuneration is concerned, the

contractual Asst. Training Officers shall be paid a

consolidated remuneration of Rs.4000/- per month.

3.4. As per training manual issued by the Director

General of Education and Training, New Delhi, the part-time

Guest Instructors/contractual employees were required to

take four hours theory classes and twenty eight practical // 9 //

classes per week and remuneration was to be given

accordingly. Prior to 2012, the I.T.Is. of the State was under

the Industry Department of Government of Odisha and under

the administrative control of DTE&T, Odisha, Cuttack. After

creation of Employment and Technical Education and

Training Department, all the I.T.Is. of the State are under the

said new Department and the designation of the DTE &T has

also been changed from DTE&T to Commissioner-cum-

DTE&T. The erstwhile Industry Department by its letter

no.10642 dated 12.08.2008, submitted a proposal to the

Deputy Secretary to the Government, Industry Department,

Bhubaneswar for creation of 59 number of posts of Assistant

Training Officers on contractual basis in different I.T.Is by

abolishing the similar number of regular posts of Assistant

Training Officers, i.e. 59 posts of regular Assistant Training

Officers. Subsequently, in 2010, the then DTE&T vide letter

dated 07.05.2010 gave proposal to the Govt. in erstwhile // 10 //

Industry Deptt. for abolition of 335 regular posts of A.T.Os

and creation of similar 335 numbers of contractual A.T.Os.

posts for different I.T.Is. under different schemes with

nomenclature as proposed.

3.5. In response to the proposal given by the DTE&T,

the Govt. of Odisha in Industry Deptt., vide letter dated

17.07.2010, abolished all 335 regular posts of ATOs and

similar numbers of contractual ATOs posts i.e. 335

contractual ATOs posts were created in respect of all the

Govt. I.T.Is of the State, including posts of ATOs held by the

members of the petitioner association. A representation was

filed by the petitioner association requesting the Government

to consider their case for absorption as ATOs on contractual

basis. In response to same, the Secretary to Govt., Industry

Department, Bhubaneswar, vide letter dated 16.03.2009,

wrote to opposite party no.3 requesting him to examine the

cases of all the part-time Guest Instructors for contractual // 11 //

appointment/regularization in the newly created posts of

contractual ATOs. Prior to this, the Government also sought

for clarification whether ORV Act is applicable in case of

contractual appointment and it was thought proper to seek

the opinion of the ST & SC Development Department in the

matter. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the said

department and it was opined that the reservation rules are

not applicable for contractual appointments.

3.6. So far as part-time Guest Instructors are

concerned, initially it was notified that, they will get

remuneration of Rs.25/- and Rs. 7.50 per hour for theory and

practical classes respectively. The Government has issued

notification revising remuneration of part-time Guest

Instructors for theory classes Rs. 100/- and practical class

Rs.70/- per class w.e.f. 22.12.2009 subject to maximum of

Rs.9,300/- per month. At this point of time, an advertisement

was issued on 20.01.2011 inviting applications for selection // 12 //

and engagement of 335 posts of ATOs on contractual basis

in different Govt. I.T.Is in the State in consolidated monthly

remuneration of Rs.9,300/- with the condition that the said

contractual engagement will be renewed in the month of

March every year subject to their satisfactory performances.

3.7. Challenging the said advertisement, some of the

members of the petitioner association filed W.P.(C) No.2788

of 2011. This Court, while issuing notice vide order dated

03.03.2011, directed to maintain status quo as on that day, in

respect of service of the petitioners, till next date. In spite of

continuance of such interim order, opposite party no.2 on

28.03.2012 issued an order fixing 24.04.2012 as the date of

interview to fill up the post of ATOs on contractual basis,

which was also challenged in the pending writ petition by

way of misc. case, and this Court on 06.04.2012 passed order

that process of selection scheduled to be held on 29.04.2012

shall continue, in pursuance of order dated 28.03.2012 issued // 13 //

by the Commissioner-cum-DTE&T, Odisha and appointment

orders be issued but no appointment order shall be issued

replacing the petitioners till the next date. Pursuant to interim

order passed by this Court, no selection process was

undertaken and as such, the members of the petitioner

association are continuing in their respective posts.

Consequentially, opposite party no.3 wrote a letter dated

22.03.2011 to the Principal Secretary to Govt., Industry

Department for consideration the case of the part-time Guest

Instructors of being engaged on contractual basis, but no

clarification was received from the Government. When the

matter stood thus, the Government of Odisha, G.A.

Department, vide notification dated 13.09.2012, notified that

Odisha Staff Selection Commission would conduct the

interview for the post of Asst. Training Officers of the I.T.Is.

of the State. Accordingly, the Odisha Staff Selection

Commission Act was amended. Subsequently, the // 14 //

Government vide office order dated 28.09.2012 informed

Odisha Staff Selection Commission about the said

notification of the G.A. Department and on 05.12.2012

requested the Director of Technical Education and Training

to place requisition report to the Odisha Staff Selection

Commission, Bhubaneswar for conducting interview for

appointment of ATOs both regular and contractual. Pursuant

to such letter, the DTE&T vide letter dated 05.11.2012

sought for clarification, but no decision was taken at the level

of the Government.

3.8. When the grievance of the members of petitioner

association for consideration of their cases for engagement as

contractual ATOs was pending, the Commissioner-cum-

Secretary, E&TE&T Department, Odisha, in the name of

clarification to the query made, vide letter dated 06.12.2012

informed that there is requirement of filling of 1027 ATOs

posts for the existing Govt. I.T.Is, as per NCVT norms, to be // 15 //

filled up, out of which 772 ATOs posts (238 regular + 489

contractual) have been sanctioned. Out of sanctioned posts of

ATOs, 497 ATOs posts (100 regular + 397 contractual) are

to be filled up, which have been concurred by the Finance

Department, and further there is requirement of 775 posts for

the newly established 5 I.T.Is and 10 Skill Development

Centres (SDCs), against which 155 posts including 90

contractual posts, have been concurred by the Finance

Department. Thereby, Odisha Staff Selection Commission

issued an advertisement on 31.07.2013 inviting online

applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the

posts of ATOs in 34 Govt. I.T.Is. and 10 Skill Development

Centres of the State on contractual basis fixing 11.59 PM of

31.08.2013, as the last date of submission of application, and

the last date of receipt of the hard copy of the application

form in the Commission's office was fixed to 07.09.2013 by

5 P.M. As it appears, out of 489 posts of contractual ATOs, // 16 //

out of which 323 posts had been kept reserved for various

categories of candidates, which includes 79 posts for SC (55

M + 24 W), 110 for ST ( 74 M +36 W) and 134 SEBC (92 M

+ 42 W). So, the reservation was more than 65%. As such,

there was a plan for conducting the examination.

3.9. Challenging the same, the then Secretary of the

petitioner association, namely, Sarat Chandra Das filed O.A.

No.3058(C) of 2013 before the State Administrative Tribunal

with a prayer to regularize the services of the part-time Guest

Instructors. But the said O.A. was confined to Sarat Chandra

Das and subsequently the matter was carried to this Court in

W.P.(C) No.21422 of 2013 and the said writ petition was

disposed of directing the Tribunal to dispose of O.A.

No.3058(C) of 2013 in accordance with law. But during

pendency of the said O.A., Sarat Chandra Das died and after

his death, though application was filed for substitution by the

petitioner association, but the Tribunal by order dated // 17 //

09.03.2015 disposed of the said O.A. as well as

Miscellaneous Petition No.1619(I) of 2014 granting liberty

to the petitioner association to approach the Tribunal afresh

since the O.A. was confined to Sarat Chandra Das in his

individual capacity as a part-time Guest Instructors and not

on behalf of the association as per the order of the Tribunal

dated 04.09.2013.

3.10 The members of petitioner association having

engaged as part-time Guest Instructors for a quite long time

and they having got requisite qualification of ATOs and

discharging the duty as ATOs and more so, their services

have been utilized by the opposite parties for years together,

instead of regularizing their services, an advertisement was

issued for giving fresh appointment, which caused prejudice

to them. Hence they invoke jurisdiction of this Court for

regularization of their services taking into consideration their

past services rendered as part-time Guest Instructors having // 18 //

requisite qualification and length of service rendered by them

in substantive posts of ATOs.

4. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions argued

with vehemence contending that as the members of

petitioner association, having requisite qualification, were

duly engaged as part-time Guest Instructors and they have

been rendering service for a quite long time and

consequentially their remunerations have been revised from

time to time, and more so, since they have been discharging

their duties and responsibility as ATOs smoothly to the

utmost satisfaction of the authorities, thereby their services

should be regularized as ATOs or otherwise they should be

engaged on contractual basis in the post of ATOs.

To substantiate his contentions, he relied upon

the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in

Sachin Ambadas Dawale & Ors. v. The State of // 19 //

Maharastra and another (W.P. No.2046 of 2010, disposed

of on 19.10.2013), which has been confirmed by the apex

Court in SLP No.39014 of 2013, disposed of on 06.01.2015;

judgment of this Court in Niranjan Das v. State of Odisha

(WPC (OAC) No.1074 of 2017 & connected WPC(OAC)

No. 1956 of 2017 (Bijay Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha),

Patitapaban Dutta Das v. State of Odisha (W.P. (C)

No.19951 of 2020, disposed of on 09.09.2021); Manas

Ranjan Behera v. D.G. of Employment & Training

(W.P.(C) No.20304 of 2021, disposed of on 13.08.2021 and

Orissa Secondary School Teachers Association,

Nimchouri, Cuttack v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.26737

of 2020, disposed of on 13.09.2021).

5. Since a batch of writ petitions was listed for

consideration, along with these writ petitions, this Court

called upon the learned counsels appearing in different writ

petitions to address the Court. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior // 20 //

Counsel appearing along with learned counsel Mr. D.N.

Rath, as well as Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1 and Mr. N. Lenka,

learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in some of the

writ petitions, unequivocally contended that they are

adopting the argument advanced by Mr. B. Routray, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ

petitions and their cases to be decided on the basis of

argument advanced by him.

6. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Standing

Counsel for the State vehemently disputed the contentions

raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ

petitions and contended that since the members of petitioner

association are continuing as part-time Guest Instructors in

different ITIs of the State and they are continuing on the

basis of status quo order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the

Tribunal in O.A. No.2480 (C) of 2015, but their cases have

been considered in a batch of cases, i.e. in O.A. No.3206 (C) // 21 //

of 2013 along with O.A. No. 3061 (C) of 2013, which have

been disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2015. Thereby, the

claim made for regularization of their services cannot sustain

in the eye of law, being barred by the principle of res

judicata. It is further contended that the claim for

regularization of the members of petitioner association does

not come within the ambit of ratio decided by the apex Court

in various decisions and contended that since the

appointments have not been made by issuing open

advertisement by the appointing authority, the same cannot

be sanctified at a later stage. Therefore, the claim for

regularization cannot be entertained. More so, the

Government have already taken a decision regretting the

proposal for regularization as part-time Guest Instructors as

per letter dated 12.06.2015, which has been formed part of

the record by way of filing counter affidavit in O.A. No.3061

(C) of 2013 and a mention to that effect has been made in // 22 //

paragraph-20 of the order dated 09.03.2015. It is further

contended that some of the members of the petitioner

association had participated in the recruitment process,

pursuant to advertisement issued, and having not come out

successful they cannot turn around and challenge the

advertisement. Thereby, the members of petitioner

association are not entitled to get regularization, as per the

provisions made in Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts

(Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. It is also

emphatically denied to regularize the part-time Guest

Instructors, who are discharging their duties and

responsibility as ATOs, either on regular or contractual

basis. Thereby, he claims for dismissal of the writ petitions.

To substantiate his contentions, he has relied

upon Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006)

4 SCC 1; State of Tamilnadu v. A. Singamuthu, (2017) 4

SCC 113; State of Bihar v. Kirti Narayan Prasad, 2019(1) // 23 //

ILR-CUT-1 (SC); State of Odisha v Momata Mohanty,

(2011) 3 SCC 436; Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

V. Workman Indian Drugs, (2007) 1 SCC 408 and

Dhananjay Malik v. State of Utteranchal, (2008) 4 SCC

171.

7. This Court heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ

petitions along with and Mr. M.K. Balantaray, learned

Standing Counsel for the State by hybrid mode. Pleadings

having been exchanged between the parties and with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions

are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

8. From the factual matrix, as delineated above, it is

evident that the members of petitioner association are the

holders of the post of "part-time Guest Instructors". If

analysis is made to the post held by the members of

petitioner association, "part" means something less than the // 24 //

whole. Then "part-time" means for part of the usual working

time only, i.e. to work part time. "Guest" means a visitor

received and entertained gratuitously or for payment or a

person honoured with hospitality by a government

organization etc. "Instructor" means teacher. Therefore, the

"Part-Time Guest Instructor" means a person working for a

part of the usual working time honoured with hospitality by

the Government organization itself for payment working as a

teacher. Therefore, these persons cannot be considered as a

teachers working whole time basis or contractual basis or ad

hoc basis or otherwise, so as to claim regularization of

services. Rather, they have been working on part-time basis

with remuneration. Admittedly, initially it was notified that

they will get remuneration of Rs.25 and Rs.7.50 per hour of

theory & practical classes respectively. The Govt. has issued

notification revising the remuneration of part-time Guest

Instructors for theory classes Rs.100/- & practical class // 25 //

Rs.70/- per class w.e.f. 22.12.2009 subject to maximum of

Rs.9,00/- per month. That ipso facto cannot be considered

that they are whole time teachers or contractual teachers or

ad hoc teachers, otherwise entitled for regularization of

services.

9. The claim as made by the members of the

petitioner association that as they are discharging the duties

of ATOs, they should be absorbed in the said posts either on

contractual or whole time basis, is also not admissible, in

view of the fact that merely because a person renders

teaching on payment on part-time basis, it cannot be

construed that he/she is rendering similar nature of work

done by an ATO either on contractual basis or on regular

basis so as to claim regularization against such post.

10. In State of Rajasthan v. Dayalal, (2011) 2 SCC

429, the apex Court in paragraph-12 held as follow:

// 26 //

"12. xxx xxx xxx

(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularization or permanent conti8nuance of part-time temporary employees.

(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute."

11. In Secretary to Government, School Education

Department, Chennai v. R. Govindaswamy, (2014) 4 SCC

769, the apex Court in paragraph-7 observed as follows:

7. In Union of India v. A.S. Pillai, this Court dealt with the issue of regularization of part-time employees and the Court refused the relief on the ground that part-timers are free to get themselves engaged elsewhere and they are not restrained from working elsewhere when they are not working for the authority/employer. Being the part- time employees, they are not subject to service rules or other regulations which govern and control the regularly appointed staff of the department. Therefore, the question of giving them equal pay for equal work or considering their case for regularization would not arise.

In paragraph-8 the apex Court referred to Daya

Lal (supra) and in paragraph-9 held as follows:

// 27 //

"9. The present appeals are squarely covered by Clauses (ii),

(iv) and (v) of the aforesaid judgment in Daya Lal case. Therefore, the appeals are allowed. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case as Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the appellant has already implemented the impugned judgments and does not want to disturb the services of the respondents, the services of the respondents which stood regularized should not be affected."

12. In A. Singamuthu (supra), the apex Court in

paragraph-16, referring to the case of Daya Lal (supra), held

that Part-Time Lecturers are not entitled to seek

regularization, as they are not working against any

sanctioned posts, and they cannot be directed for absorption,

regularization or permanent continuance. It is further held

that part-time temporary employees in government-run

institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular

employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay

for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment,

even if serving full-time, seek parity in salary with

government employees. The right to claim a particular salary

against the State must arise under a contract or under a

statute.

// 28 //

13. In view of the nature of appointment given to the

petitioners either by the Principal of the respective colleges

or from the institution made by the management committee,

that ipso facto cannot be said they have been engaged by

following due procedure of selection as per rules against the

sanctioned posts. If the petitioners are not holders of the

sanctioned posts and their engagement is without following

due procedure of law and the nature of duty they are

discharging cannot be construed to be similar to that of a

regular employee, they cannot claim regularization of

services or they cannot claim contractual appointment so as

to make their services regularization after completion of six

years, as per statutory rules framed by the Government in the

year 2013.

14. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioners lay emphasis on the judgment of the

Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin Ambadas Dawale // 29 //

(supra), wherein in paragraphs-18 and 19, it has been

observed as follows:

"18. Xxxxx The Lecturers who are appointed in the Private Polytechnic Institutions after selection through the School Committee are appointed on contractual basis as "Shikshan Sevak" for the period of three years as per the policy of the Government of Maharashtra incorporated in the resolution dated 27th April, 2000. It is not in dispute that the selection process through which the petitioners are selected is much less stringent than the selection process of the 38 wp2046.10 Private Polytechnic. We see no reason as to why the petitioners, who are otherwise eligible and qualified for the posts and who are selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra and who are appointed in sanction posts after the issuance of advertisement and following regular procedure of selection should not be treated at par with their counterparts in the Private Polytechnic Institutions. We are of the view that the petitioners cannot be discriminated viz-a-viz their counter parts working in the Private Polytechnic Institutions. We are conscious that the Lecturers working in the Government Institutions form a different class than the Lecturers working in the Private Institutions. However, when all other service conditions are similar, we are of the view that the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits as their counterparts working in the Private Polytechnic Institutions are entitled as far as the conferment of regularization and permanency are concerned.

19. One more fact needs to be taken into consideration is that even according to the respondent-State there are more than 5000 teaching posts which are still vacant and the advertisement issued by the MPSC is only 39 wp2046.10 for 400 posts. It can, thus, be clearly seen that even after the candidates who would be selected through the selection process conducted by the MPSC are available, more than 4500 posts will be vacant. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners' absorption would in no way affect the candidates who would now be selected through the MPSC. It is, thus, clear that the petitioners' continuation in service would not adversely affect the fundamental right guaranteed under // 30 //

Article 16 to the citizens. We are of the considered view that the respondent-State having extracted the work from the petitioners for years together, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the right of regular employment particularly when their entry can neither be termed as "illegal" nor "back door".

Having so observed, in paragraph-22 of the said

case, the Bombay High Court issued the following

directions:

"22. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of such of the petitioners and confer permanency on such petitioners who have completed 40 wp2046.10 three years' service with technical breaks. The respondents shall absorb the petitioners within a period of six weeks. Needless to state that the petitioners who are in continuous employment till 15.10.2013 shall be continued in service as regular employees. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to regular salary from 1st November, 2013 and would not be entitled to claim any monetary benefits for the past services rendered by them in spite of their regularization. Needless to state that since the petitioners' services are regularized, they shall be entitled to the continuity in service for all other purposes except monetary purposes from the date of their first appointment."

Against the said judgment of the Bombay High Court, the

State of Maharashtra preferred SLP (C) No.39014 of 2013

and the apex Court, vide order dated 06.01.2015, dismissed

the said SLP. Thereby, the order passed by the Bombay High

Court has been confirmed. But, the fact of the said case is // 31 //

totally different from that of the present case. Thereby, the

said judgment is distinguishable from the present case.

15. In Niranjan Das (supra), reliance has been placed

on the judgment of Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra), which

is applicable to that case, as there was no dispute that the

petitioner in that case was working as a full time resource

person by following due procedure of selection pursuant to

an advertisement, but he was being paid on contractual basis

and put into service under regular vacancy of junior

lecturers. But, this is not the case here. The ratio decided in

that case is not applicable to the present case so as to

regularize the services of the petitioners.

16. Reliance was also placed on Patitapaban Dutta

Dash (supra), which stands on different footing than that of

the present case, as the petitioners therein sought

regularization of their service on completion of six years of

contractual service, in view of principle decided by the apex // 32 //

Court in Umadevi(3) (supra); State of Karnataka v. M.L.

Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247; Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar;

Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2018 SC

233 & Rajnish Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

2019(17) SCC 648.

17. In Umadevi (3) (supra) the apex Court in

paragraph-53 of the judgment held as follows:

"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa, AIR 1967 SC 1071; R.N. Nanjundappa v. T.

Thimmaiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not // 33 //

sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

18. Further, in M.L. Kesari (supra), following the

ratio decided in Umadevi (3) (supra), the apex Court in

paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 of the judgment held as follows:

"9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.

10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the // 34 //

protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one- time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.

11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure."

19. The purpose and intent of the decision

in Umadevi (3) (supra) was therefore two fold, i.e. firstly, to // 35 //

prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and

secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been

irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of

Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for

almost a decade after the decision, Umadevi (3) (supra) is a

clear indication that it believes that it was all right to

continue with irregular appointments, and whenever

required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed

employees on the ground that they were irregularly

appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the

employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization

and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This

is precisely what Umadevi (3) (supra) and M.L.Kesari

(supra), sought to avoid.

20. The laudable objective behind the aforementioned

judgments of the apex Court in Umadevi (3) and M.L.

Keshari (supra) is to prevent the employers to exploit // 36 //

employees by engaging them in different categories of

names, i.e., daily/casual/NMR and now contractual one.

Therefore, as an one time measure, the apex Court observed

that for the employees, who have completed ten years of

service as on the judgment of Umadevi, the employers

should take steps for regularization of their services so that

the irregularly and illegally engaged employees, having

rendered so many years, will not be exploited any further.

But the avowed objective of the judgments of the apex Court

in Umadevi and M.L. Keshari has not been adhered to by the

employer in letter and spirit. In contravention to such

objective, the employers have gone on engaging the

employees in different names, more particularly, now-a-days,

as contractual engagement. Thereby, the employers are

overreaching the principle laid down by the apex Court in

aforementioned judgments. For that, the employees should // 37 //

not be denied the benefit of regularization, as they have been

exploited by the employers.

21. In Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and others

v. State of Orissa, AIR 2014 SC 1716, the apex Court

clarified the ratio decided in Umadevi (3) (supra) at

paragraphs 34 and 35 as follows:

"34. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (AIR 2006 SC 1806 : 2006 AIR SCW 1991) ruled that regularisation of illegal or irregularly appointed persons could never be an alternative mode of recruitment to public service. Such recruitments were, in the opinion of this Court, in complete negation of the guarantees contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Having said so, this Court did not upset the regularisations that had already taken place, regardless of whether such regularisations related to illegal or irregular appointments. The ratio of the decision in that sense was prospective in its application, leaving untouched that which had already happened before the pronouncement of that decision. This is evident from the following passage appearing in the decision:

"We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

35. The above is a significant feature of the pronouncement of this Court in Umadevi's case (supra). The second and equally significant feature is the exception which this Court made in para 53 of the decision permitting a one-time exception for regularising // 38 //

services of such employees as had been irregularly appointed and had served for ten years or more. The State Government and its instrumentalities were required to formulate schemes within a period of six months from the date of the decision for regularisation of such employees. This is evident from a reading of para 53 (of SCC) : (Para 44 of AIR, AIR SCW) of the decision which is reproduced in extenso:

"One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (AIR 1967 SC 1071) (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (AIR 1972 SC 1767) (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan (AIR 1979 SC 1676) (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date..."

22. So far as "irregular appointment" is

concerned, the same has also been clarified in Amarendra

Kumar Mohapatra (supra) at paragraph-43 as follows:

"43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka // 39 //

v. M.L. Kesari and Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 247 :

(AIR 2010 SC 2587 : 2010 AIR SCW 4577), has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi's case (supra). The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularisation (1) the employees worked for ten years or more, (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment.

Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation. Para 7 in this regard is apposite and may be extracted at this stage:

"7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation"

enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be // 40 //

considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."

23. The apex Court in Amarkant Rai, mentioned

supra, referring to Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14

SCC 65, in paragraphs 12 & 13 held as follows:

"12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , this Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 14 SCC 65 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 85] directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of Punjab holding as under: (Nihal Singh case [(2013) 14 SCC 65 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 85] , SCC pp. 79-80, paras 35-36)

"35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.

36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new // 41 //

posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is--the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks."

13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades.

24. In Sheo Narain Nagar, mentioned supra,

the apex Court in paragraph-8 of the judgment held as

follows:

"8. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Uma Devi (Supra) has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad-hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Uma Devi (supra). The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay // 42 //

scale. That spirit of the Uma Devi (supra) has been ignored and conveniently over looked by various State Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Uma Devi (supra) has not be implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularizing the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Article 14, 16 read with Article 34 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of down trodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Uma Devi (supra) can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Uma Devi (supra) laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible, when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Uma Devi (supra).

25. In Rajnish Kumar Mishra, mentioned supra,

the three-Judge Bench of the apex Court in paragraphs-12

and 16 of the judgment held as follows:

"12. The learned counsel further submits, that this Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.1, after considering the judgment of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. 1 (2018) 13 SCC 432 {Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 [@ SLP(C) // 43 //

No.6183/2015]} Umadevi (3) & Ors.2 wherein it was observed that as a onetime measure the employer should take steps for regularisation of the services of the employees who had put in service of 10 years or more and had directed regularization of the appellants therein. The learned counsel further submits, that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

16. It is further to be noted that similarly circumstanced employees in the employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh, who were appointed on daily wages/contractual basis had approached the Allahabad High Court praying for regularization of their services. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions which orders were affirmed by the Division Bench. The said employees therein had approached this Court by way of Civil Appeal No.18510 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6183 of 2015) in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar cited supra. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra):

"The appellants were required to be appointed on regular basis as a onetime measure, as laid down in paragraph 53 of Umadevi (supra). Since the appellants had completed 10 years of service and temporary status had been given by the respondents with retrospective effect in the 02.10.2002, we direct that the services of the appellants be regularized from the said date i.e. 02.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period of three months from today."

26. Applying the above principles, for consideration

of regularization of service, to the present case, none of the

conditions thereof are being satisfied, as the members of

petitioner association are working as part-time Guest

Instructors.

// 44 //

27. In a similar case in Manas Ranjan Behera

(supra), this Court, vide order dated 13.08.2021, directed the

opposite parties to make an enquiry to find out the nature of

work being conducted by the members of petitioner

association and if it is akin to that of Asst. Training Officer

and the members of petitioner association meet the required

qualification and further considering the long requirement of

such post, to take a decision for creating the post of Asst.

Training Officer.

Similarly, in Orissa Secondary School Teachers

Association, Nimchouri, Cuttack (supra), this Court

observed that the case of the members of the petitioner

association therein is covered by the judgment in W.P.(C)

No.27634 of 2020 and accordingly, disposed of the said case.

In none of the above two cases, direction has been

given for regularization of service as part-time Guest // 45 //

Instructors. Therefore, the said judgments are not applicable

to the present case, as the same are distinguishable.

28. The claim of the members of petitioner

association revolves around the fact that the part-time Guest

Instructors in Govt. I.T.Is. are continuing as such for more

than 6 years, instead of regularization of their service in

terms of Odisha Group-C & Group-D Posts (Contractual

Appointment) Rules, 2013, the advertisement was issued on

17.08.2016 to fill up the post of ATOs on contractual basis,

which is contrary to the proposal submitted by the DTET for

regularization of their services. It is further contended that

they are continuing on the basis of status quo order dated

16.07.2015 granted by the Tribunal in O.A. No.2480 (C) of

2015 and their cases have not been considered for

regularization. Even though they had approached the

Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3061 (C) of 2013 and the

Tribunal vide order dated 09.03.2015 directed to take a // 46 //

decision in the matter of regularization of contractual ATOs

and part-time Guest Instructors, but no such decision has

been taken, instead, they are going to fill up the post of

contractual ATOs by issuing advertisement dated

17.08.2016.

As it appears, the issue involved in the present

case has already been decided in O.A. No.3206(C) of 2013

and O.A No.3061(C) of 2013, which have been disposed of

vide order dated 09.03.2015. Thereby, the present case

suffers from principle of res judicata.

29. The principle laid down by the apex Court in

Umadevi (3) (supra) is that for regularization of services the

petitioners should have come through regular recruitment

process, but that is not so in the instant case. Here in this case

the members of the petitioner association have been engaged

on hourly basis to take periods of certain classes and their

service status is positioned inferior to daily wagers.

// 47 //

Even in A. Singamuthu (supra), the apex Court

has clearly laid down that the part-timers cannot seek

regularization.

30. In Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra), the same

principle, as has been laid down in pargraph-43 of the

judgment in Umadevi (supra), has been reiterated in

paragraph-13 and the ratio, as has been laid down in the case

of Momata Mohanty (supra), has been referred to in

paragraph-16, clearly laying therein that merely because

appointment have been given by putting some note on the

notice board of the college, such appointment having not

been made by issuing advertisement for open recruitment by

the appointing authority, that cannot be sanctified at a later

stage.

31. In Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

(supra), it was held that regularization of service of the

applicant also cannot be entertained. More so, in pursuance // 48 //

of the direction contained in paragraph-20 of the order dated

09.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. NO.3061(C) of

2013 and batch, the Government have already taken a

decision regretting the proposal for regularization of part-

time Guest Instructors, as per letter dated 11.06.2015, and

granted them age relaxation for participating in the

recruitment process, which is the fall out of the decision of

the Government in the Department of E&TE&T, vide letter

dated 16.01.2013 prescribing therein the guidelines that in

the event the part-time Guest Instructors engaged on hourly

remuneration basis, participate in the recruitment process,

they shall be entitled for maximum age relaxation up to 10

years. Thereby, the claim of the petitioners for regularization

of services is contrary to the policy decision of the

Government. Consequentially, challenge made to the

advertisement for filling up of the post of ATOs on

contractual basis cannot sustain in the eye of law. More so, // 49 //

the members of petitioner association ought to have

participated in the recruitment process taking advantage of

age relaxation, as granted by the State Government, but

cannot claim for regularization of services as has been

prayed herein. The benefit of regularization, as claimed

pursuant to provisions of Odisha Group-C and Group-D

Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, cannot be

extended, as the said rules are not applicable to the present

case, and this question has been answered by the Tribunal in

its judgment delivered in O.A No.3061 (C) of 2013 and

batch. It has also been further clarified that while passing the

judgment on 09.03.2015 in O.A. No.3061 (C) of 2013, the

Tribunal has made reference to the interim order dated

20.12.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24396 of

2012. In the meantime, the said writ petition has already

been disposed of on 22.07.2015 granting liberty to approach

the appropriate forum in accordance with law and further // 50 //

directed that status quo shall continue for a period of ten

days. So far as the claim made in the petition with regard to

interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2788 of

2011, the said writ petition has already been disposed of vide

order dated 21.11.2014 with an observation that as the

petitioners are claiming contractual appointment under the

State Government, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain

the writ petition and liberty is granted to the petitioners

therein to move appropriate forum ventilating their

grievances.

32. In view of discussions/analysis made above and

taking into account the nature of work rendered by the

members of the petitioner association, their recruitment

process and other relevant factors, which do not satisfy the

requirement of the law laid down by the apex Court in the

matter of regularization of services, this Court is not inclined

to extend the benefit as claimed in these writ petitions, as // 51 //

members of the petitioner association are discharging their

duties as part-time Guest Instructors with a specified

remuneration per class. Thereby, both the writ petitions

devoid of merits and the same are hereby dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

.............................

DR. B.R. SARANGI, JUDGE

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 12th November, 2021, Alok/GDS