[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sri Ajayananda Sahoo vs Union Of India And Others ..... Opposite ... on 26 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6481 of 2026
Sri Ajayananda Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Kunal Kumar Swain
-versus-
Union Of India and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Pasayat, CGC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application
as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly
prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;
AND
(A) a writ of Mandamus or an appropriate
writ may be issued directing the opposite
parties to regularize the services of the
petitioner as Assistant Professor in the
subject Vyakarana from the date of his initial
appointment as the services of similarly
situated contractual Guest Faculty / Assistant
Professors have been regularized by the
Central Sanskrit University, New Delhi, with
all consequential service and financial
benefits in consonance with the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case
of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others
(S.L.P. (C) No.5580 of 2024 disposed of on
20.12.2024), in the case of Shripal and
another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil
Appeal No.8157 of 2024 disposed of on
31.01.2025), in the case of Dharam Singh
and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018
decided on 19.08.2025) and in the case of
Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand and
others (SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024
disposed of on 30.01.2026), within a time to
be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;
(B) And any other order / orders or
direction/directions may be issued so as to
give complete relief to the petitioner;"
4. The factual background of the present writ petition in short is
that the Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement published in the
local daily "The Samaj" on 30.08.2013 applied for the post of Guest
Faculty in the subject of Vyakarana in Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan
(Deemed University), Puri. On being duly selected the name of the
Petitioner was recommended for appointment as a Guest Faculty in
the above named University. Finally, by virtue of order dated
18.09.2013 the Petitioner was engaged as a Guest Faculty. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that on being
appointed as a Guest Faculty the Petitioner continued to discharge
his duty sincerely to the satisfaction of all.
5. While this was the position, in the year 2023 while the
Petitioner was continuing as a Guest Faculty, which has been
extended from time to time, uninterruptedly, the engagement of the
Petitioner was converted and he was appointed Assistant Professor
(Contract) in Vyakarana w.e.f. 01.09.2023 by the Director, Central
Sanskrit University, Puri, which has been subsequently renamed as
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (Deemed University). Subsequently, the
appointment of the Petitioner as Assistant Professor was being
extended from time to time and that the Petitioner has been
discharging his duties continuously without any interruption in such
service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument
referred to the experience certificate at Annexure-5, issued by the
Director of the University in favour of the Petitioner. He further
submitted that in the meantime the Petitioner has acquired the
qualification of Acharya in Vyakarana (Master of Arts) from
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthanam (Deemed University), New Delhi.
He has also acquired PhD. Degree from the above named University.
The Petitioner has also acquired the qualification of National
Eligibility Test (NET) from the UGC, New Delhi and M.Phil. Degee
from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Puri.
6. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition
is that although the Petitioner has been serving continuously since
the date of his initial appointment on 18.09.2013 at Annexure-1,
however, the Opposite Parties have not considered the case of the
Petitioner for regularization of his service. Being aggrieved by such
inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner
approached the Opposite Party No.2 for regularization of his service
by filing a representation dated 31.01.2026 at Annexure-7 to the writ
petition.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his argument
referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Bhola Nath v. The State of Jharkhand and others decided
in SLP (Civil) No.30762 of 2024 vide judgment dated 30.01.2026. It
was also contended that by laying down the law in Bhola Nath's
case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken note of the
judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India and others reported in 2024
SCC Online SC 3826 as well as the judgment in Sripal and another
V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221
and in Binod Kumar v. Union of India reported in 2024 9 SCC 327
along with Dharam Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1735. After examining the
above noted judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhola Nath's
case (supra) has laid down the principle in the concluding paragrath-
14 of the judgment. Referring to the principle laid down in Para-14
of Bhola Nath's case (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that the Opposite Parties should have regularized the
service of the Petitioner as the further continuance of the Petitioner
on contractual basis against a sanctioned vacant post is nothing but
exploitation. In course of argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pawan Kumar and others v. Union of India and others
decided in SLP(C) No.29214 of 2019 by judgment dated
13.02.2026. By referring to Para-9 of the above noted judgment,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has relied extensively upon on the principle of law
laid down in Jaggo's case (supra). Thereafter, in the concluding
paragraph the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the
judgment of the High Court, directed the Opposite Party to
regularize the service of the Petitioner with a consequential direction
to release all benefits in favour of the Appellant in that case. In view
of the aforesaid settled principle of law, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties have committed a
gross illegality by not regularizing the service of the Petitioner.
8. Learned Central Government Counsel for the Opposite Parties
on the other hand contended that although he has no specific
instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the fact
that the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2
by filing a detailed representation dated 31.01.2026 and in the event
the same is still pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for taking a
final decision on it, he will have no objection in the event this Court
directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the
Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgments within a
stipulated period of time.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts, further keeping in view the principle of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments
referred to hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite
Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the
Petitioner at Annexure-7 strictly in accordance with law and by
applying the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above noted judgments within a period of eight weeks
from the date of communication of a certified copy of today's order.
The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner
within ten days thereafter. It is further directed that since the
grievance of the Petitioner is pending before the Opposite Party
No.2 and this Court directs consideration of such grievance, the
services of the Opposite Parties shall not be dispensed with for a
period of three months.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 6 of 6.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 02-Mar-2026 17:19:33
