[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Tapaswini Nath & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 1 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) Nos.17483, 17484, 17791, 17792, 17794, 17955, 17957,
17965, 17973, 34791, 34792 & 34793 of 2021
WP(C) No.17483 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Tapaswini Nath & Ors. .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan
Addl. Govt. Advocate
Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate
(Opp. Party No. 3)
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 01.12.2025 & Date of Judgment: 01.12.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners,
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the
// 2 //
State-Opp. Parties and Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing
for Opp. Party No. 3.
3. Since the present batch of writ petitions have been filed on a
similar issue, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of
by the present common order. But for the sake of convenience and
bravity, W.P.(C) No. 17483 of 2021 is treated as the lead case.
4. It is contended that all the Petitioners though were engaged as
Community Organizer in the year 2011 by facing due recruitment
process pursuant to Annexure-2 and are continuing as such till date,
but claim for regularization was rejected, pursuant to the earlier order
passed by this Court vide order dtd.18.03.2021 under Annexure-18.
It is contended that such claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of
regularization was rejected on the ground that in view of the
provisions contained under Rule 10 of the Odisha Municipal
Community Development Service (Method of Recruitment &
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, the posts in which Petitioners are
claiming regularization since are to be filled up, by way of direct
recruitment through Odisha Staff Selection Commission, Petitioners'
claim cannot be considered.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that
similar issue was before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1762 of 2022 &
batch. This Court vide Judgment dtd.21.11.2025 clearly held that the
aforesaid 2017 Rules cannot be made applicable to the claim of the
Petitioners therein and accordingly directed Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1
to consider the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of
regularization against the sanctioned post of Accountant by
// 3 //
following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Jaggo
vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal
& Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 as
well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal
No(s).8558 of 2018. View expressed by this Court in para 8.2 and
8.3 of the said Judgment reads as follows:-
"8.2. This Court is also of the view that since Petitioners
were all engaged in the year 2013 and the relevant
Recruitment Rule was published vide notification issued
on 21.03.2017 under Annexure-G/1, provisions of the said
Rule cannot be made applicable to the claim of the
Petitioners.
8.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is
inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction on
Opp. Party No.1 to consider the claim of the Petitioners to
get the benefit of regularisation against the sanctioned
post of Accountant following the decision in the case of
Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh and so also the
Resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 16.10.2022.
Rule-3 of the said Resolution reads as follows:
3. Repeal- Save as otherwise provided in
Rule 4, the Odisha Group-B posts
(Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 and
the Odisha Group "C" and Group "D" posts
(contractual appointment) Rules, 2013 are
hereby repealed."
4.2. It is accordingly contended that in view of the ratio decided by
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1762 of 2022 and batch, the impugned
order cannot sustain legal scrutiny and it is liable to be quashed with
a direction on Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the claim of the
// 4 //
Petitioners in the light of the decisions in the case Jaggo, Shripal
and Dharam Singh as cited supra.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting
the impugned order made his submission that the post of Community
Organizer now has to be filled up by way of direct recruitment in
terms of the 2017 Rules to be conducted by the Odisha Staff
Selection Commission. Since as per the aforesaid 2017 Rules the
regular post of Community Organizer has now to be filled up by
direct recruitment to be conducted by OSSC, Petitioners are not
eligible to get the benefit of regularization, which has been rightly
rejected vide the impugned order in each of the cases.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioners
were all engaged as against the post of Community Organizer in the
year 2011, pursuant to the selection process initiated as per
Annexure-2. This Court taking into account the ratio decided in the
above noted batch of cases, is of the view that the said ratio clearly
applicable to the facts of the present batch of writ petitions.
6.1. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of this Court, this
Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dtd.18.03.2021 so
passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-18. While quashing the
said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh
decision with regard to the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit
of regularization following the decisions in the case of Jaggo,
Shripal and Dharam Singh as cited supra. This Court directs Opp.
// 5 //
Party No. 1 to pass a fresh order within a period of three (3) months
from the date of receipt of this order.
7. All the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of with quashing
of the impugned order in each of the cases.
Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case records.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 1st December, 2025/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
