Orissa High Court
Sandeep Ranjan Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 22 April, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2268 of 2024
Sandeep Ranjan Mishra .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
W.A. No.2269 of 2024
Nirupama Mohanty .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
W.A. No.2270 of 2024
Rudra Narayan Pradhan .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in these cases:
For Appellants : Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate
Mr. S. Sekhar, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Bimbisar Dash
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Page 1 of 6
W.A. Nos.2268, 2269 & 2270 of 2024
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 22nd April, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. These three writ appeals are taken up together as the
common question is involved therein. The seminal points raised in
these writ appeals by Mr. Routray, learned Senior counsel
representing the appellants that the learned Single Judge has
proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of extraneous factors
and does not confine within the folds of the pleadings and the
reliefs claimed in the writ petitions.
2. The writ petitions were taken out by the appellants
claiming their rights under the Odisha Group-B Posts (Contractual
Appointment) Rules, 2013 and the clarificatory resolution of 2014
whereby and whereunder the contractual appointment made prior
in time shall be deemed to have been regularized at a pay band
indicated therein. Though a conscious decision was taken that all
the substantive posts shall be filled up on the basis of the
contractual appointments but the clarificatory resolution
subsequently made allegedly confers the right into such contractual
W.A. Nos.2268, 2269 & 2270 of 2024
appointees, which was the foundation of the reliefs claimed in the
said writ petitions.
3. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the
writ petitioner aimed to achieve the relief of regularization of their
contractual services and further proceeded to rely upon the
Constitution Bench decision of the apex Court in case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and a subsequent two-Judge Bench decision of the
apex Court rendered in case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari
and others reported in AIR 2010 (SC) 2585.
4. Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent-State fairly submits that the relief
claimed in the writ petitions, does not pertain to regularization of
the contractual appointment but continuance in such capacity
despite the subsequent conscious decision having taken by the
State in desisting from continuing with such contractual
appointment. He further submits that during the currency of the
writ petitions, the advertisement which was impugned therein was
W.A. Nos.2268, 2269 & 2270 of 2024
withdrawn by the Government upon taking a conscious decision
and, therefore, the writ petitions in fact become infructuous.
5. The point in our opinion emerged from the stand of the
respective parties is whether the petitioners can claim any
indefeasible right on the basis of the Rules, 2013 and the
clarificatory resolution issued in the year 2014 to continue as
contractual appointees despite such rules having repealed
subsequently.
6. In course of the hearing, we further find a factual dispute
in relation to continuance in discharging the duties and such factual
dispute ought to have been decided on the basis of the materials
available on the record.
7. It is no longer res integra that the Court cannot make out
new case for the parties when the parties neither pleaded nor
sought relief in this regard. The determination must be confined to
the pleadings and the reliefs and transgression beyond the same is
not encouraged. The Court cannot perceive a thing which does not
germane from the pleadings nor can travel on the peripheral of an
W.A. Nos.2268, 2269 & 2270 of 2024
omnibus prayer made in the writ petition and recast the relief suo
motu in disposing of the proceedings.
8. It was nobody's case that the petitioners had prayed for
regularization of such contractual services and, therefore, the
manner in which the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dispose
the writ petitions perceiving the reliefs in the form of
regularization of such contractual service is not only de horse the
pleading but beyond the reliefs claimed therein. Solely on the
ground that the learned Single Judge has made out a new case for
the parties and there is no findings returned on the core issue
involved in the writ petitions, we could not persuade ourselves to
concur with the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single
Judge.
9. The order of the learned Single Judge is thus set aside. The
writ petitions are restored to its original file and number. The writ
petitions are remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide
afresh on merit strictly within the four corners of the pleadings and
the reliefs claimed.
W.A. Nos.2268, 2269 & 2270 of 2024
10. Since we did not invite the parties to exchange affidavits
nor we venture to enter into the merit of the case, any observations,
accidentally or incidentally touching upon the merit, shall not have
any persuasive effect at the time of deciding the writ petitions.
11. The writ appeals are thus disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
A. Nanda
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Apr-2025 17:54:13
W.A. Nos.2268, 2269 & 2270 of 2024
