Orissa High Court
Narasingha Suar vs State Of Odisha And Others on 4 April, 2025
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 571 of 2025
Narasingha Suar .... Appellant
Mr. J. Pal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General along with
Mr. S. Das, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 04.04.2025
01. 1. This writ appeal arises from an order dated 5th March, 2025
passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6481 of 2025,
whereby and whereunder an interim order to the effect that any
appointment/engagement made in the meantime shall be subject to
the final decision of the said writ petition.
2. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Acharya, learned
Advocate General that the instant appeal is not maintainable having
filed against an interim order, which does not come within the
purview of the judgment envisaged under Chapter-VIII of Rule-2(2)
of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 read with Clause-10
of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at
Patna.
3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there was
complete embargo having created by the Government in outsourcing
any service and even the Regulation-29 of Shree Jagannath Temple
(Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1967 does not contemplate
outsourcing of the service.
4. Apropos, the aforesaid submissions having advanced before
us, it is a specific stand of learned Advocate General that in order to
facilitate the effective management and the administration, the
decision was taken to outsource the services of the Jagannath
Temple Police (JTP) by appointing the persons on a casual basis
which is purely temporary in nature. He further submits that there is
no impediment in this regard as the outsourcing is not perennial in
nature and, therefore, the contention of the appellant is not correct.
5. We have been taken to the order of a Division Bench passed
in W.P.(C) No.23838 of 2011, where the stand of the Government
was duly recorded with regard to the dispensation of the restrictions
which was imposed initially in outsourcing, the cleaning operation
for the engagement of the temporary sweepers. Though the JTP was
not directly under consideration, yet certain observations have been
made in the said order pertaining to the JTP to the effect that the
Government has not dispensed with and/or relaxed the restrictions
initially imposed and therefore, such outsourcing may not be
permissible.
6. The learned Advocate General is very categorical in his
submission and conveys the laudable intention of the Government
that such engagement is purely contractual in nature and does not
create any inchoate right into the persons so engaged and, therefore,
such restrictions, which was initially there, does not appear to have
been pressed in action at this juncture. Furthermore, since the Single
Bench has clearly observed that any appointment and/or engagement
made pursuant to the said advertisement dated 27th February, 2025
shall be subject to the final outcome of the said writ petition,
therefore, we do not find any justification in interfering with the
impugned order at this stage.
7. The appeal and applications, if any, are accordingly
disposed of. For abundant precaution, we hereby made clear that all
points available to the parties are kept open; if taken before the
learned Single Judge, shall be decided on its merit.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
S. Behera
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Apr-2025 18:43:34
