Orissa High Court
Saubhagya Manjari vs State Of Orissa & Others on 19 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.8489 of 2023 & WP(C)Nos.18005,18006,18010,18011,
18012,18013,18014,18015,18016,18017,18018,18019,18020,
18021,18022, 18023,18024 & 18025 of 2015 and
WP(C ) No.14652 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
Saubhagya Manjari .... Petitioner
Samantaray
-versus-
State of Orissa & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners :M/s. S.K. Das, P.K. Behera,
N. Jena,Advocates
For Opp. Parties :M/s. S.K. Samal, AGA
(for Opp. Party No.1)
M/s. S.C. Rath, M.K. Parida
(for Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3)
M/s. A.K. Mohanty, Adv.
(for intervenor in W.P.(C )
No.18014 of 2015)
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 02.09.2023 and Date of Judgment: 19.10.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
// 2 //
2. Since all these Writ Petitions have been filed inter
alia seeking a direction on Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to
regularize the services of the Petitioners as against the
posts in which they are continuing with further prayer
to extend the benefit of seniority/promotion etc., all
these matters were heard analogously and disposed of
by the present common order.
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to
the decision taken by the Orissa University of
Agriculture and Technology(in short, <The University)
it was decided to start MCA Programme under the self-
financing Scheme and notification to that effect was
issued by the University on 25.08.1998. The proposal
so submitted by the University to open MCA
Programme under College of Agriculture Engineering
and Technology under O.U.A.T with an intake capacity
of 68 students per year through self financing scheme
was approved by the Government in the Department of
Agriculture vide its letter dt.08.12.1998 from the
academic session 1998-99. Pursuant to the
notification issued by the University on 25.08.1998.
with due approval of the Government in the
// 3 //
Department of Agriculture, advertisement was issued
from intending candidates to fill up different posts in
the self financing scheme for MCA course. All these
petitioners basing on such advertisement issued by
the University at different point of time were engaged
as Asst. Professor in different discipline of the
University on consolidated remuneration basis. Even
through the Petitioners on their engagement as against
the post of Asst. Professor in different discipline were
paid consolidated remuneration, but subsequently,
they were allowed regular scale of pay as provided
against the posts in terms of the scale of pay
prescribed by the University Grants Commission(in
short, <UGC=) but without any increment.
3.1 Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended
that Writ Petitioners are continuing from their
respective dates of appointment as Asst. Professor in
different discipline of the University, petitioner in
W.P.(C ) No.18013 of 2015 being the first appointee
under the Scheme with his the date of joining as
15.03.1999. The respective dates of the joining of the
// 4 //
Petitioners in the present batch of writ Petitions are as
follows:
Case No. Name of the Date of appointment Name of the Name of the
Petitioner post Subject
WP(C)No 18005 Radhanath Hota 21.07.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18006 Subhadra Mishra 18.05.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18010 Tanuja Panda 21.08.2009 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18011 Sukanta Ku. 26.04.2007 Asst. Professor Bio-Information
of 2015 (HOD)
Pradhan
WP(C)No 18012 Rashmiranjan 23.12.2003 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
Patra
WP(C)No 18013 Abhimanyu Dash 10.03.1999 Asst. Professor Micro-Biology
of 2015
WP(C)No 18014 Pratap Keshari 20.02.1997 Asst. Professor Micro-Biology
of 2015
Pattnaik
WP(C)No 18015 Ambuja Behera 20.02.1997 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18016 Prasanna Kumar 21.07.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
Pattanaik
WP(C)No 18017 Binita Dash 28.08.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18018 Debaswapna Mishra 18.05.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18019 Sanjibanisudha 21.08.2009 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
Pattanaik
WP(C)No 18020 Niranjan Badu 03.06.2005 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18021 Sarita Mohanty 18.05.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science
of 2015
WP(C)No 18022 Sushamarani Marth 13.06.2008 Asst. Professor Bio-Information
of 2015
WP(C)No 18023 Suryanarayan Rath 03.04.2007 Asst. Professor Bioinformatics
of 2015
WP(C)No 18024 Sucharita 19.03.2008 Asst. Professor Bioinformatics
of 2015
Balabantaray
WP(C)No 14652 Sonali Das 31.08.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science
// 5 //
of 2017
WP(C)No 8489 Saubhagya Manjari 12.01.2009 Asst. Professor Micro-Biology
of 2023
3.2 Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that
since basing on the decision taken by the University
and by facing due recruitment process so issued by the
University at different point of time, all the Petitioners
were engaged as against the Post of Asst. Professor in
different discipline and are in receipt of regular scale of
pay as prescribed by the UGC, taking into account their
long continuance as against the said post, they accrued
a right of regularization in their favour. But instead of
being allowed to continue for last so many years under
the self financing scheme, when the University did not
take any step to regularize the services of the
Petitioners, the Petitioners are before this Court with a
prayer to direct the University to regularize the services
of the Petitioners with other consequential prayers.
3.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in
support of his aforesaid submissions with regard to the
claim for regularization relied on decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006, (S.C)
1806, State of Karnatak and Others V. M.L. Kesari
and others, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Nihal Singh and
Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2013) 14 SCC
// 6 //
65 & Amarkanta Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8
SCC 265.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on
the decision of this Court passed in the Case of Subrat
Narayan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Odish & Ors.
(W.P.(C) No. 18659 of 2016) as well as Dr. Prasanna
Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2016 (I)
ILR CUT 373).
In the case of Uma Devi (supra) Hon'ble Apex
Court in Para -44 has held as follows:-
<44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as
explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa
(supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (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
wages 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 subjudice, need
not be reopened based on this judgement, 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.=
In the case of M.L. Keshari (supra) Hon'ble Apex
Court in Para 8 and 13 has held as follows:-
<8. Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the Government or
instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the
// 7 //
services of those irregularly appointed employees who had
served for more than ten years without the benefit or
protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a
one-time measure. Umadevi (3) directed that such one-time
measure must be set in motion within six months from the
date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).
13. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that
the cases of the respondents should be considered in
accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to
be given, in view of Umadevi (3), is that the Zila Panchayat,
Gadag should not undertake an exercise within six months,
as a general one-time regularisation exercise, to find out
whether there are daily-wage/casual/adhoc employees
serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such
employees (including the respondents) fulfil the requirements
mentioned in para-53 of Umadevi (3). If they fulfill them,
their services have to be regularised. If such an exercise has
already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of
Respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases,
then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation
of the said one-time exercise within three months. It is
needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the
requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3), their services need
not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten
years' service do not possess the educational qualifications
prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they
may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower
posts.=
In the case of Nihal Singh (supra) Hon'ble Apex
Court in Para 35 to 38 has held as follows:-
<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 tin 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.
21. In the first instances, the petitioner and the other
Election Commissioners were appointed when the work of
the Commission did not warrant their appointment. The
reason given by Respondent 1 (Union of India), that on
account of the Constitution (61" Amendment) Act reducing
the voting age and the Constitution (64th Amendment) and
(65 Amendment) Bills relating to election to the Panchayats
and Nagar Paliks, the work of the Commission was expected
to increase and, therefore, there was need for more Election
Commissioners, cuts notice. As has been pointed out by
Respondent 2, the work relating to revision of electoral roll
on account of the reduction of voting age was completed in
all the States except Assam by the end of July 1989 itself,
and at the Conference of the Chief Electoral Officers at
Tirupati. Respondent 2 had declared that the entire
preparatory work relating to the conduct of the then ensuing
general elections to the Lok Sahba would be completed by
August in the whole of the country except Assam. Further the
Constitution (64th and 65th Amendment) Bills had already
fallen in Parliament before the appointments. In fact, what
// 8 //
was needed was more secretarial staff for which the
Commission was pressing, and not more Election
Commissioners. What instead was done was to appoint the
petitioner and the other Election Commissioner on
16.01.1989. Admittedly, further the view of the Chief
Election Commissioner were not ascertained before making
the said appointments. In fact, he was presented with them
for the first time in the afternoon of the same day ie, 16-10-
1989.
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 finance is no doubt exclusively
within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant
case creation of new 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.
37. We are of the opinion that neither the Governmnet of
Punjab nor these public sector banks can continue such a
practice consistent with their obligations to function in
accordance with the Constitution. Umadevi (3) judgement
cannot became a licence for exploitation by the State and its
instrumentalities.
38. For all the abovementioned reasons, we are of the
opinion that the appellants are entitled to be absorbed in the
services of the State. The appeal are accordingly allowed.
The judgments under appeal are set aside.=
In the case of Amarkanta Rai (supra) Hon'ble
Apex Court in Para 8, 9, 11 to 14 has held as follows:-
<8. Insofar as contention of the respondent that the
appointment of the appellant was made by the Principal who
is not a competent authority to make such appointment and
is in violation of the Bihar State Universities Act and hence
the appointment is illegal appointment, it is pertinent to note
that the appointment of the appellant as night guard was
done out of necessity and concern for the College. As noticed
earlier, the Principal of the College vide letters dated 11-3-
1988, 7-1-1993, 8-1-2002 and 12-7-2004 recommended the
case of the appellant for regularisation on the post of night
guard and the University was thus well acquainted with the
appointment of the appellant by the then Principal even
though the Principal was not a competent authority to make
such appointments and thus the appointment of the
appellant and other employees was brought to the notice of
the University in 1988. In spite of that, the process for
// 9 //
termination was initiated only in the year 2001 and the
appellant was reinstated w.ef. 3-1-2002 and was removed
from services finally in the year 2007. As rightly contended
by the learned counsel for the appellant, for a considerable
time, the University never raised the issue that the
appointment of the appellant by the Principal is ultra vires
the rules of the BSU Act. Having regard to the various
communications between the Principal and the University
and also the educational authorities and the facts of the
case, in our view, the appointment of the appellant cannot be
termed to be illegal, but it can only be termed as irregular.
9. The Human Resources Development, Department of Bihar
Government, vide its Letter dated 11-7-1989 intimated to the
Registrar of all the Colleges that as per the settlement dated
26-4-1989 held between Bihar State University and College
Employees' Federation and the Government it was agreed
that the services of the employees working in the educational
institutions on the basis of prescribed staffing pattern are to
be regularised. As per sanctioned staffing partien, in
Ramashray Baleshwar College, there were two vacant posts
of Class IV employees and the appellant was appointed
against the same. Further, Resolution No. 989 dated 10-5-
1991 issued by the Human Resources Development
Department provides that employee working up to 10-5-1986
shall be adjusted against the vacancies arising in future.
Although, the appellant was appointed in 1983 temporarily
on the post that was not sanctioned by the State
Government, as per the above communication of the Human
Resources Development Department, it is evident that the
State Government issued orders to regularise the services of
the employees who worked up to 10-5-1986. In our
considered view, the High Court ought to have examined the
case of the appellant in the light of the various
communications issued by the State Government and in the
light of the circular, the appellant is eligible for consideration
for regularisation.
XXX XXX XXX
11. Elaboration upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3)
Case and explaining the difference between irregular and
illegal appointments in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L Kesari,
this Court held as under (ML Kesari case SSC p 250, para 7)
7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to
the general principles against 'regularisation enunciated in
Umadevi (3). 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 possesses the prescribed minimum
qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be
illegal., But where the persons 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.=
12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case, this Court in
Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab directed the absorption of the
// 10 //
Special Police Officers in the services of the State of holding
as under: (Nihal Singh Case, 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 extracting work from persons such as the
appellants herein for decades together itself would he
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 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 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)3 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. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly
situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz. one
Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages
on the post of Clerk was regularised w.e.f. 1987. The
appellant although initially working against unsanctioned
post, the appellant was working continuously since 3-1-2002
against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on
record regarding the details whether any other night guard
was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award
monetary benefits to be paid from 1.-1-2010.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that
the appellant has served the University for more than 29.
years of the post of night guard and that he has served the
College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the
authorities are directed to regularise the services of the
appellant retrospectively w.ef. 3-1-2002 (the date on which
he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar).=
Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies
on the decision of this Court passed in the Case of
Subrat Narayan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Odish &
// 11 //
Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 18659 of 2016) as well as Dr.
Prasanna Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.
(2016 (I) ILR CUT 373). In the case of Subrat
Narayan Das (supra) this Court in Para 27 has held as
follows:-
<27. Consequentially, this Court is of the considered view that
the Opposite Parties should absorb the Petitioners on regular
basis against sanctioned vacant posts taking into account the
length of service rendered by them in their respective posts, in
which they are continuing, without insisting upon them to
undergo the rigors of the selection procedure, since they were
engaged by following due process of selection in a
transparent manner conducted by the Authority through the
selection committee on contractual basis and are continuing
for more than 16 years. The Petitioners being not backdoor
entrants to the service and admittedly their performance
having been found to be satisfactory for more than a decade
and half, Opposite Party No.4 should extend all consequential
benefits, as due and admissible in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four
months. Ordered accordingly.=
In the case of Dr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra
(supra) this Court in Para 22 has held as follows:-
<22. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered
view that the opposite parties should absorb the petitioner on
regular basis against sanctioned vacant post taking into
account the length of service rendered by him as a Lecturer in
Mathematics in which he is continuing without insisting him
to undergo the rigors of the selection procedure laid down
under the BPUT Act and Rules framed thereunder reason
being in the meantime the petitioner has become over aged
and he has also been exploited for 20 years for no reasons
though he has qualified in all the interviews conducted by the
authority for his engagement on contractual basis. The
petitioner being not a backdoor entrant to the service, the
opposite party-University should extend all consequential
benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four
months. The writ petition is allowed. No order to cost.=
3.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also relied on
another decision of this Court rendered in the case of
// 12 //
Dr. Sarbanarayan Mishra Vs. Orissa Unviersity of
Agriculture & Technology and Others, so passed on
17.07.2008 in WP(C ) No.14049 of 2006.
3.5. It is contended that this Court in the aforesaid
decision relying on the provisions contained under
clause-49 of the Statute 1965 directed the university to
consider the case of the Petitioner for his regularization
as against a permanent post. The view expressed by
this Court in paragraph-5 of the said order is quoted
hereunder.
<5. It is argued by Mr. Dora, learned Senior
counsel for the Opposite Party-University; that
pursuant to the advertisement made on 28.01.2005,
out of four, three petitioners have already applied for
the said posts and instead of interfering in the writ
application, this Court should allow the process of
interview to continue where the cases of the
petitioners shall be considered along with other
candidates applying for the said posts.=
3.6. It is contended that such a direction was issued to
the University in the aforesaid writ petition relying on the
earlier order passed by this Court in 27.07.2005 in OJC
No.17618 of 1997. It is accordingly contended that in view
of the decisions as cited (supra), the petitioners are eligible
and entitled to get the benefit of regularization as against
the post in which they are continuing for last so many
years and this Court may pass appropriate direction in
that regard.
// 13 //
4. Mr. S.C. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the
University in the present batch of Writ Petitions on the
other hand made his submission basing on the stand
taken in the counter affidavit.
4.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
University that the proceeding of the academic council held
on 24.10.1998, wherein it was decided to open MCA
Programme on self financing scheme and accordingly the
proposal was sent to the Government for approval.
Government vide its letter dt.08.10.1998 though approved
the opening of MCA programme under the University on
self financing scheme, but accorded such approval with
the condition that Government of Orissa in the Agriculture
Department shall not extend any assistance for meeting
any expenditure under the MCA Programme at any point of
time. It is also contended that basing on the decision
taken by the University so approved by the Government,
the University issued advertisement to fill up the post of
Asst. Professor and Associate Professor for MCA
Programme and in the said advertisement, it was clearly
indicated that the posts are on consolidated pay basis and
will be for a contract period of three (3) years. The
Petitioners' while were issued with the order of
engagement, in such orders, it was clearly indicated that
// 14 //
the appointment will not confer any right to claim any
regular appointment in future.
4.2. It is also contended that the post against which the
Petitioners are continuing under the self financing scheme
are not sanctioned post of Government and all those posts
were created by the University to impart teaching in the
MCA Programme under self financing scheme. It is also
contended that since the posts are created by the
University to manage the teaching under the self financing
scheme, their remuneration is made out of the fees
collected from the students. The engagement of the
Petitioners so made was renewed with issuance of order of
engagement with usual break in service. It is accordingly
contended that petitioners in the present batch of writ
petitions have no continuance in their favour on regular
basis and they are continuing against non-sanctioned
posts. It is also contended that Board of Management of
the University vide its resolution dt.02.09.2015 though has
requested Government to accord necessary approval for
creation of two(2) posts of Asst. Professor in the P.G. Deptt.
of Microbiology in the College of Basic Science and
Humanities under O.U.A.T but till date, no such approval
has been received for creation of such posts in question.
Similarly, in the year 2009 vide letter dt.09.03.2009, the
// 15 //
University though submitted a proposal to the Agriculture
Deptt. for creation of posts of Placement Officer in Class-II
cadre, but till date, no such approval has been received
from the Agriculture Deptt. of the Government. It is
accordingly contended that since all the petitioners are
continuing against non-sanctioned posts with break in
service, though they are in receipt of the scale of pay as
prescribed by the UGC, but since they are not continuing
against any sanctioned post with due approval of the
Government, the Petitioners are not eligible to get the
benefit of regularization, as prayed for. The decision cited
by learned counsel for the Petitioners are of no help as all
the Petitioners are continuing against non-sanctioned post
and against posts which have been created to prosecute to
MCA Programme under the self financing scheme. It is
accordingly contended that the Petitioners are not eligible
and entitled to get the benefit of regularization along with
other benefits as prayed for in the present batch of writ
petitions.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials available on record, it is
found that all the petitioners were engaged as Asst.
Professor in different discipline of the University pursuant
to the advertisement issued by the University on different
// 16 //
occasion. This Court finds that in the said advertisement
so issued by the University at different point of time, it
was clearly indicated that the posts in question are under
the self financing scheme for MCA course. It is also
indicated in the advertisement that all the posts are on
consolidated pay basis and on contract basis for a period
of three (3) years. Even though it is found from the record
that all the Petitioners since on the same date of joining
are continuing against the post in which they were
engaged under the self financing scheme, but their
continuance against those posts are not on regular basis
and engagement of the Petitioners has been extended
from time to time with usual break in service. Since it is
found that the Petitioners are all continuing under the self
financing scheme, though for different period extending
upto 23 years in the case of the Petitioner in W.P.(C )
No.18013 of 2015, but since no such material was
produced before this Court with regard to the right of the
petitioners to get the benefit of regularization, in view of
their long continuance against any sanctioned post, this
Court is unable to issue any positive direction to the
University to regularize the services of the Petitioner
placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra).
// 17 //
5.1. However, considering the fact that all the Petitioners
are continuing as Asst. Professor for more than 10 year
and one of them is continuing under the Scheme starting
from 15.03.1999 onwards, this Court while disposing the
batch of Writ Petitions, directs the University to frame a
scheme to consider the case of the Petitioners for their
regularization in services. It is directed that the University
shall frame such a scheme within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of this order and send the
same for its approval to the Government in Agriculture
Deptt. within the aforesaid time period. It is further
directed that on receipt of the proposal /scheme from the
University, Government in Agriculture Deptt. shall take a
lawful decision on the same taking into account the long
continuance of the Petitioners. Such a decision with
regard to according approval of the scheme be taken by
the Government in the Department of Agriculture within a
period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of the
same from the University. On receipt of such approval
from the Government, if any, University shall take
appropriate steps to regularize the services of the
Petitioners in a time bound manner.
All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
// 18 //
Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected
cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 19th October,2023/sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 21-Oct-2023 15:43:22
