[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Aravinda Behera vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) Nos. 36007 & 36010 of 2025
Aravinda Behera ..... Petitioner
Mr. N. Sarkar, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical, both
the writ petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by the
present common order.
3. Heard Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the
Opp. Parties.
4. Both the writ petitions have been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the case and call for the
records and after hearing both the parties pass the
following reliefs:
(i) To declare the action of Opposite Parties in not
opening the result of ASI of police written examination
held on 06.12.2020 of the petitioner which was/is kept
under seal cover as bad, illegal and nonest in the eye of
law and thereby direct/order the Opposite Parties to
open the seal cover of the petitioner's result forthwith;
(ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to send the
petitioner to undergo ASI of police course of training by
nominating the petitioner's name along with the
candidates as mentioned in Notification dated
29.10.2025 as at Annexure-9;
And pass such other order/orders as would be
deemed fit and proper;
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall
as in duty bound, ever pray."
5. It is contended that even though Petitioners are continuing on ad
hoc basis as Constable in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4, but
because of the in action on the part of the Opp. Parties in not
regularising their services as against the post of Constable in terms
of the Judgment passed by this Court on 04.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No.
33857 of 2020 under Annexure-6, they are prejudiced from
undergoing the ASI training, which has been fixed in terms of the
impugned communication dtd.29.10.2015 under Annexure-9.
5.1. It is contended that because of the in-action on the part of the
Opp. Parties in not regularizing their services as Constable,
Petitioners will now be overaged and will not be eligible to undergo
the training meant for the post of ASI. It is accordingly contended
that without prejudice to their claim, Petitioners be allowed to
undergo the ASI training basing on Annexure-9.
6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the
stand taken in the preliminary counter affidavit so filed, contended
that Petitioners as on date are continuing on ad hoc basis and seeking
implementation of the judgment passed by this Court on 04.11.2024
under Annexure-6, Petitioners have approached this Court by filing
contempt application.
6.1. It is contended that since Petitioners as on date have not yet been
regularized as Constable, they are not eligible and entitled to undergo
the training meant for the post of ASI. It is also contended that while
continuing on ad hoc basis, though Petitioners were regularized vide
order dt.10.11.2020, but the said order of regularization after being
quashed by this Court in its judgment dtd.04.11.2024 under
Annexure-6, direction has been issued to the Opp. Parties to
regularize the services of the Petitioners basing on their position in
the select list of the recruitment conducted in the year 2006 and in
terms of order dt.14.08.2012 and 05.11.2012 of this Court.
6.2. It is accordingly contended that since the order of regularization
extended in favour of the Petitioners has already been quashed and a
fresh direction has been issued to consider the claim of the Petitioners
to get the benefit of regularization, taking into account their position
in the merit list of the year 2006 and order dt.14.08.2012 and
05.11.2012 of this Court, prior to compliance of the order, Petitioners
are not eligible to get the benefit of undergoing the training so meant
for the post of ASI.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioners
were initially engaged on ad hoc basis in the year 2006 pursuant to
the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2915 of 2006 & batch.
Even though services of the Petitioners were regularized vide order
dtd.10.11.2020, but the same has been interfered with by this Court
vide judgment dtd.04.11.2024 under Annexure-6. This Court while
quashing order dt.10.11.2020, has directed the Opp. Parties to
consider their claim for regularization in terms of order dt.14.08.2012
and 05.11.2012 of this Court. Order passed by this Court under
Annexure-6, which is not disputed has not yet been implemented.
7.1. Since Petitioners are not regular employees in the eye of law and
claim for regularization is pending consideration before the authority
pursuant to the order passed under Annexure-6, this Court is of the
view that Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to undergo the
training so meant for the post of ASI. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the writ petition with the prayer as made.
8. Both the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. Interim order
passed earlier stands vacated. However, it is observed that if in terms
of the order passed by this Court under Annexure-6, Petitioners will
be regularized basing on their position in the select list of the year
2006 and accordingly placed above the appointees up to the year
2012, their claim to undergo the ASI training will be taken into
consideration, even if they have crossed the upper age limit by then
and Constables appointed up to the year 2012 have got the benefit of
ASI training.
Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case record.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
