Orissa High Court
Deepesh Kumar Biswal & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC No. 21108 OF 2014
Deepesh Kumar Biswal & others .... Petitioners
Mr. S.K. Pattaniak, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. P.K. Pattanaik,
Advocate
- Versus -
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Sharma,
Addl. Government Advocate
Mr. B. Dash, Advocate,
(O.Ps No.2 & 3)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER_
07.09.2021
WPC No. 21108 of 2014,
WPC No.20204 of 2014,
WPC No.20664 of 2014
&
WPC No. 22179 of 2014
1.
These matters are taken up through hybrid mode.
Order No.
17 2. Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S.K.
Pattanaik, learned Senior counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Pattanaik,
learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014; Mr. B.
Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.D. Routray,
learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 20204 of 2014 and
W.P.(C) No. 20664 of 2014; Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22179 of 2014; Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for opposite party no.1; and Mr. B. Dash, learned
counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3- State Pollution Control Board.
3. Since the reliefs sought in all the writ petitions are similar, they are
taken up together and disposed of by this common order, which will govern
all the cases.
4. In W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014 prayer has been made to quash the
resolution dated 09.10.2014 of the 109th Board meeting under Annexure-15
and to issue direction to opposite parties not to terminate the services of the
petitioners appointed as Asst. Environmental Engineers under Annexure-7
series. Whereas W.P.(C) No. 20204 of 2014 has been filed seeking to quash
the letter dated 13.05.2014 under Annexure-5 communicated by opposite
party no.1 and to issue direction to opposite parties to allow the petitioners to
continue in their respective posts. Since reliefs sought in other two writ
petitions are identical, there is no necessity to indicate the same specifically.
5. As it reveals, pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.05.2012 issued by
opposite party no.3, the petitioners, having requisite qualification, applied for
the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer and by following due procedure
of selection, they have been appointed in their respective posts and continuing
as such till date. But all on a sudden, it was decided by the Government that
the appointments of the petitioners are irregular and unlawful, thereby, steps
were taken for termination of their services. Therefore, the petitioners have
approached this Court by filing the above writ petitions.
6. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No. 20204 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 20664 of 2014 contended that
in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section-3(A) of Section-12 of
Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974, the recruitment rule was
framed by the State Pollution Control Board, namely, "The Recruitment
Conditions of Service of Employees of the State Pollution Control Board,
Orissa Regulation, 2011" to regulate the methods and conditions of service of
the officers and employees of the State Pollution Control Board. It is stated
that as provided under Rules 16, 17 and 18, selection process has been done
and the petitioners have been duly selected and appointed and their
appointment was also ratified by the Board and therefore, a right has accrued
in their favour, as they are continuing in their respective posts in consonance
with the provisions of law. But all on a sudden, steps have been taken vide
letter dated 13.05.2014 to remove the petitioners from service at the behest of
the State Government. As such, the State has no such authority to issue any
direction with regard to recruitment and termination of services of the
employees of the Pollution Control Board. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment of the apex Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited V. Union of
India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427.
7. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S.K. Pattanaik,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 21108 of
2014 also endorsed the arguments made by Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20204 of 2014 and
W.P.(C) No. 20664 of 2014. So is also the contention of Mr. A.K. Nayak,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22179.
8. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for
the State, referring to the counter affidavit filed on 18.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No.
21108 of 2014, contended that since there were irregularities in recruitment
process of Assistant Environment Engineer, when the same was brought to
notice of the Government, following 2 nos. of notices for calling attention
motion in the Orissa Legislative Assembly, instructions were sought from the
State Pollution Control Board, which enquired into the matter and submitted a
report for consideration and appropriate follow up action in respect of so
called irregularities committed by the State Pollution Control Board in the
matter of recruitment to the post of Assistant Environment Engineers.
Accordingly, the Government approval was taken to suggest the Board to
bring the report to the notice of the Chairman, State Pollution Control Board
for consideration and appropriate follow up action. It was also decided to
advise the Board to take action to amend the State Pollution Control Board
rules and regulations appropriately so that the scope of recurrence of such
irregularities in future may be avoided. It is also further contended that so far
as amendment of rules is concerned, State has also approved, but so far as
regularization of services of the petitioners is concerned, since the matter is
subjudice before this Court, no decision has yet been taken.
9. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for State Pollution Control
Board contended that pursuant to advertisement and by following due
procedure of selection as per prevailing rules, the petitioners were selected
and appointed and they are discharging their duties from the date of their
joining. But on the basis some allegation, the State Government has taken
steps directing the State Pollution Control Board for removal of the
petitioners, thereby, action has been taken in consonance with the letter issued
on 13.05.2014, which has been challenged before this Court. But now the
Government, as a matter of principle, has decided to approve the amendment
rules. So far as regularization of the services of the petitioner is concerned,
since the matter is subjudice before this Court, the Government will take steps
in accordance with law.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioners have
been appointed by following due procedure of selection in accordance with
the rules, i.e. The Recruitment Conditions of Service of Employees of the
State Pollution Control Board, Orissa Regulation 2011 and they are
continuing in service. At the behest of the Government, pursuant to letter
dated 13.05.2014, when steps were taken for removing them from service,
they have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. Considering the
nature of grievance made by the petitioners, this Court has passed interim
order of status quo on 07.11.2014 allowing the petitioners to continue in their
posts and by virtue of the same the petitioners are continuing in their
respective posts till date. As it reveals, the State Government took steps on the
allegation of some persons, which had been questioned in the State Assembly.
On that basis, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately report was submitted
by the State Pollution Control Board, on receipt of which, the State
Government decided to amend the rules of the State Pollution Control Board.
11. In paragraph-8 of the Counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.1 on
18.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014, it has been stated as follows:
" That it is humbly submitted that in the year 2018, the
Government of Odisha in Forest & Environment Department in
its letter No. 17255/ F & E, dated 6.8.2018 has written a letter to
the Member Secretary, SPCB requesting the Chairman SPCB for
consideration and appropriate follow up action and to take
necessary action to amend the rules and regulations of SPCB
appropriately to avoid recurrence of such irregularities in future
and give a proposal for regularization for alleged irregular
appointment of other Assistance Environment Engineers to this
Department and pursuance to aforesaid letter the SPCB has
written a letter to Government vide letter No. 12213
dtd.10.10.2018 requesting to please communicate the decision of
the Govt. regarding regularization of services in respect of 14
(fourteen) numbers Assistance Environmental Engineers and 3
(three) numbers of Assistance Environmental Scientists who have
joined in the year 2013 from the merit list prepared in the year
2012, After receipt of the above reply from the SPCB, the
Government approved the proposal of SPCB regarding
amendment of provision under Regulation-18 (3). Regarding
irregular recruitees, the decision in the matter is pending for
taking further decision, as the matter is subjudice."
12. In view of the candid statement made in the counter affidavit, it
apparent that the Government, as a matter of principle, has decided to approve
the amendment of the rules. So far as regularization of the services of the
petitioners is concerned, no decision has been taken as the matter is subjudice
before this Court. Thereby, this Court disposes of all the writ petitions
directing the State Government to take a decision on the regularization of
services of the petitioners in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible,
preferably by 31st of December, 2021 and till then interim order passed by this
Court shall operate.
13. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
A.K. Rana
