Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9339 Ori

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

     WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.9335 and 23062 of 2016

(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.)

W.P.(C) No.9335 of 2016
Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra                .......      Petitioner
                               Versus
State of Odisha & Others                .......      Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner            :     Mr. Sidhartha Rath, Advocate
For Opposite Parties      :     Mr. M.S. Sahoo,
                                Additional Government Advocate

W.P.(C) No.23062 of 2016
Susil Ray                               .......      Petitioner
                               Versus
State of Odisha & Others                .......      Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner            :     Mr. Sidhartha Rath, Advocate
For Opposite Parties      :     Mr. M.S. Sahoo,
                                Additional Government Advocate


CORAM :
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

W.P. (C) Nos.9335 & 23062 of 2016                      Page 1 of 5
                            JUDGMENT

07.09.2021

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Both the writ petitions have been filed assailing the common judgment dated 25th September, 2005 passed by the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

2. The Petitioners namely, Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra and Susil Ray filed O.A.No.684(C) of 2013 and O.A.No.696(C) of 2013 respectively in the OAT against their order of termination dated 15th September, 2000. Their case is that they were initially appointed on 2nd April, 1992 on ad-hoc bais for a period of 89 days as Fieldman Demonstrator in the Office of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer at Kashipur. While continuing as such on ad-hoc status, they were deputed as Junior Soil Conservation Assistant to Orissa Tribal Development Project (OTDP), Kashipur and then to different other projects from time to time. The Government of Odisha in Agriculture Department on 15th September, 2000 passed the order to dispense with the services of the Petitioners. Thereafter the Director, Soil Conservation by order dated 20th September, 2000 dispensed the services of the Petitioners. This was challenged by the Petitioners in the OAT.

3. The learned OAT in the impugned judgment dated 10th September, 2015 rejected the prayer of the Petitioners holding that initial appointments of the Petitioners was not in conformity with the prescribed standard established in law and further the applicants

were not entitled to the benefit of regularization of their service in view of the principles settled in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi AIR 2006 SC 1806.

4. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the learned OAT has failed to appreciate the real issue involved in the case, but erroneously by applying the principles in Umadevi's case has dismissed the original applications. It is further submitted that the Petitioners were initially appointed on 2nd April, 1992 and continued for eight years till the termination of their services. Though the Government by order dated on 5th October, 2007 directed that the Petitioners along with other similarly situated persons should be accommodated, no action has been taken till date. However, some other similarly situated persons have got the benefit under the order of the learned OAT which stood confirmed by the Supreme Court.

5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioners are irregular appointees and they even not completed ten years of their service to be considered for regularization. Nevertheless, the Government in their orders dated 15th December, 2006 and 5th October, 2007 have decided to take appropriate action for all such similarly situated 516 persons to accommodate them suitably. It is further submitted that no person junior to the Petitioners have been accommodated yet.

6. The initial appointment order of the Petitioners and subsequent orders extending their appointment from time to time do not show that the Petitioners were appointed following the due process or

selection. No document is produced on record to show that the Petitioners have qualified through any competitive examination process. Their appointment orders further reveal that they were appointed on ad-hoc basis for 89 days in each spell. So in absence of any material that their appointments were made through the valid process, no right accrues in their favour to question the retrenchment.

7. The contention of the Petitioners that some similarly situated persons viz., Hrudananda Panda, Narayan Pattnaik, Suresh Sahu and Manoj Panda on their approaching the OAT have been directed to be appointed with all consequential benefits, which have been confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.11249 of 2011 and 11322 of 2011 and as such they should be extended with similar benefits, haa been elaborately discussed by the learned OAT in the impugned judgment. The learned OAT has held that those persons as mentioned above are admittedly senior to the present Petitioners and thus the principle of 'last come first go' is not violated. Since the Government is in the process of consideration of their cases as VAW along with all similarly situated persons, who are 516 in number, in the letters dated 5th October, 2007 and 27th April, 2007, no illegality can be said to have committed against the Petitioners.

8. Before this Court, the Petitioners also do not dispute that any similarly situated person junior to them in the list have been accommodated for appointment. Since the initial appointments of the Petitioners were without following due process of selection, no error is noticed in the impugned order of termination. As such no relief can be granted to them on that score. When the Government is

considering their cases for accommodation as VAW along with other similarly situated persons, no direction can be issued in favour of the Petitioners that their cases should be considered out of turn. Moreover no right accrues in their favour for issuance of any such direction.

9. Thus, no infirmity is seen in the impugned order of the OAT and as such, the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.

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

B.P.Routray Judge

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

Dr. S. Muralidhar Chief Justice

C.R. Biswal, Secretary