Himanshu Shekhar Parhi & vs State Of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2297 Ori

Orissa High Court

Himanshu Shekhar Parhi & vs State Of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2026

Author: A.K. Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                 WP(C) No.12702 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

Himanshu Shekhar Parhi &                .....              Petitioners
Ors.
                                                Represented by Adv. -
                                                Pitambar Panda, Mr.
                                                Budhadev Routray(sr.
                                                Adv)

                               -versus-
State Of Orissa & Ors.                .....          Opposite Parties
                                                Represented by Adv. -
                                                Mr. U.C.Jena. A.S.C.
                                                M/s Meghna Manaswini
                                                Mohapatra, Priyanka
                                                Mohanty

                        CORAM:
          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                      MOHAPATRA

     _____________________________________________________
                Date of hearing & Judgment: 12.03.2026
     ______________________________________________________


A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. The Petitioner No.1, who was working as a Junior Clerk on

being appointed on 12.07.1991 and subsequently promoted to the

post of Senior Clerk on 13.01.1992, the Petitioner No.2, who was

working as a Junior Clerk on being appointed on 12.01.1992 and

Petitioner No.3, who was working as a Peon, have approached this

Court by filing a present writ application with a prayer for a issuance

of writ of mandamus to the Opposite Parties directing them to

regularise the service of the Petitioners reckoning their inter se

seniority from the date of their regularisation of service vis-à-vis

similarly situated employee w.e.f. 17.11.2017 and to allow them

consequential service benefits as extended by virtue of order dated

12.09.2013 of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal. A further

prayer has also been made for issuance of writ of certiorari for

quashing order dated 25.04.2025 at Anenxure-8, whereby the

Opposite Party No.1 has rejected their prayer for regularisation of

their service.

2. The factual background of the Petitioners' case in brief leading

to filing of the present writ application is that the Govt. of Odisha

took a policy decision which was intimated to the Director Secondary

Education, Odisha vide letter dated 01.08.1990 to the effect that

under the Centrally sponsored Scheme of vocationalisation of

Secondary Education, the Government was pleased to introduce +2

vocational stream in 150 institutions of the State as per the list

enclosed the said letter. Further, with regard to some of the

institutions which are run by private management, it was decided to

obtain their clear willingness and agreeability to be a part of the

scheme and the terms and conditions as would be fixed by the

Government. As such, it appears from the pleadings on the writ

application that the aided educational institutions agreed to the terms

and conditions of the Government. Accordingly, the Managing

Committee of different private institutions started the recruitment

procedure for appointment of non-teaching staff. Accordingly, the

Managing Committee of U.N. High School, Aruhabad, in the district

of Balasore, where the institutions was opened initially, appointed the

Petitioners in their respective post as has been narrated hereinabove.

Such appointment orders of the Petitioners were also forwarded to

the Office of the Director Secondary Education, Odisha for

information and taking necessary action.

3. While Petitioners were continuing in their respective posts the

Government declared that the private institutions in which vocational

education scheme was introduced to be treated as a government

institutions for all purposes vide office order dated 21.01.1992. In

view of the aforesaid office order dated 21.01.1992, the private

institutions where the vocational education was being imparted was

taken over by the Government. Accordingly, it has been asserted in

the writ application that the Petitioners became Government

employee w.e.f. 21.01.1992. In the meantime, the Government took a

decision not to fill up the post of Senior Clerk even though by then

Senior Clerks were appointed by such Private Education Institutions

before they were taken over by the Government. Being aggrieved by

such decision of the Government, the Petitioners approached the

learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos.81, 82, 83

of 1994 with a prayer for regularisation of their service. By virtue of

order dated 10.10.1996, the learned OAT dismissed the O.A

applications filed by the Petitioners. Thereafter, a review application

was filed on 12.12.1997 which was allowed vide a common

judgment dated 12.09.2013.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture

contended that before disposal of the review application vide order

dated 12.09.2013, the learned O.A.T passed a judgment on

06.02.1999. The judgment dated 06.02.1999 was assailed by the State

by filing OJC No.11297 of 2000 before this Court. A Division Bench

of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2001 dismissed the abovenoted

OJC. Thereafter, the State preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside

order dated 19.02.2001 remitted the matter back to this Court for

fresh adjudication.

5. Mr. B.Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners further submitted that again on 08.09.2005, this Court

upheld order dated 06.02.1999 passed by the learned OAT. The State

Government again preferred a Civil Appeal No.3091-3106 of 2012

challenging order dated 08.09.2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide order dated 31.07.2012 again remitted back to the learned OAT

for fresh hearing and disposal. After the matters were remanded by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court the learned OAT once again disposed of

the applications filed by the Petitioners by virtue of order dated

12.09.2013, thereby directing the State Government to regularise the

service of the Petitioners subject to fulfilment of the following

criteria;

i) That they are continuing and performing duties;

ii) That they have not abandoned/voluntarily quit the

jobs;

iii) That they are not ousted by the authorities.

6. Mr. B.Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners at this juncture contended that order dated 12.09.2013

passed in the abovenoted O.A by the learned Odisha Administrative

Tribunal has attained finality as the State has not preferred any

further appeal as against such order. He further contended that

pursuant to order dated 12.09.2013 of the learned OAT, the Govt. of

Odisha decided to implement the aforesaid order by virtue of its

decision dated 26.10.2013. Accordingly, a data sheet was prepared

for the Petitioners along with other eligible candidates. Subsequently,

the Director submitted a status report on 27.11.2014 to the

Government basing on the report of the principal. As per the said

status report it has been shown that the Petitioners were voluntarily

absent from duty w.e.f. 01.05.2011 to 08.04.2012.

7. In course of his argument, Mr. Routray, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the Petitioners further contended that on

17.11.2017, twenty (20) similarly situated persons were regularised

in service by the State Government, pursuant to the order of the

learned OAT dated 12.09.2013. However, the cases of the present

Petitioners were not considered by the Government in view of the

status report submitted by the Director, relying upon the report of the

principal of the concerned institution. At this juncture, learned Senior

Counsel for the Petitioners alleged that the principal of the institution

in question, with some oblique motive, did not consider the case of

the Petitioners and was not in favour of the regularisation of service

of the present Petitioners and, accordingly, records were transferred

and Petitioners were shown to be voluntarily absent for the period

indicated in the status report of the principal. Such report of the

principal as well as the Director were seriously disputed by the

Petitioners in the present writ application on the ground that the same

is incorrect and motivated by oblique motive.

8. While the matter stood thus, on 21.01.2019 the State

Government again rejected the claim of the Petitioners and the

Petitioners were compelled to approach the learned O.A.T by filing

O.A No.847 of 2019. On abolition of the learned O.A.T, the O.A

applications were transferred to this Court. A coordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 29.09.2023 was pleased to quash the

impugned rejection order dated 21.01.2019 and further directed the

State Government to reconsider the case of the Petitioners afresh by

taking into consideration the report of the D.E.O which was attached

to the writ application.

9. In course of hearing learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners

drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the D.E.O,

Balasore stated before this Court that the D.E.O., Balasore has

categorically stated that the Petitioners were continuing in service

and they were performing their duties. Accordingly, the learned

Coordinate Bench vide order dated 29.09.2023 quashed the

impugned order and directed the Opposite Parties to reconsider the

case of the Petitioners for regularisation of their service. Paragraph-6

& 7 of the order dated 29.09.2023, which are relevant for the purpose

of the present case, are quoted herein below: -

"6. Pursuant to the said order, an enquiry was caused by the DEO, Balasore Opp. Party No. 4 and while filing the counter affidavit copy of the enquiry report has been enclosed as Annexure-A/4 Basing on the said enquiry report, Mr. Mishra, learned AGA contended that during enquiry it is found that the Petitioners are all continuing after being appointed as against the sanctioned posts of Sr. Clerk, Jr. Clerk and Peon respectively.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and in view of the finding in the enquiry report so prepared by the Opp. Party No. 4, this Court is of the view that prayer of the Petitioners for their regularization needs a fresh consideration and the ground on which it was earlier rejected vide Annexure- 7 is not sustainable in the eye of law Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection of Petitioners' claim so made vide communication dtd.21.01.2019 under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioners for their regularization. It is observed that while taking such a fresh decision, the effect of the report so prepared by the Opp. Party No. 4 vide Annexure-A/4 to the counter, shall be taken into

consideration in its proper perspective. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order."

10. After the WPC(OA) No.847 of 2019 filed by the present

Petitioners was disposed of by the learned Coordinate Bench vide

order dated 29.09.2023, the State Government while reconsidering

the case of the present Petitioners for regularisation of their service

sought for a fresh report from the D.E.O., Balasore. The D.E.O.,

Balasore, i.e. Opposite Party No.3, then submitted a report on

23.02.2024, which has been filed along with present writ application

at Annexure-9 to the writ application. Learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioners referring to the report of the D.E.O., Balasore dated

23.02.2024 at Annexure-9 submitted before this Court that the

D.E.O. after a thorough inquiry found that the three Petitioners were

working in the school from the date of their joining and suggested the

Government to take a decision in the matter of the present

Petitioners. He further submitted that the D.E.O. has elaborately

discussed in his report with regard to the continuity in service of the

Petitioners and their performance in Paragraph Nos.5 & 6. Since

those two paragraphs are relevant for a just decision in the present

writ application, the same are quoted herein below-:

"5. That, the attendance register for the period

from 01.05.2011 to 08.04.2012, it is submitted that the said attendance register was available at the time of previous enquiry. But it has not been authenticated by the then Principal of the school. The copy of the said attendance register has been duly attested by the present Principal and submitted vide his letter No.29 Dt.16.02. 2024.The copy of attendance register for the above period is annexed here with as Annexure-I.

6. That, regarding the missing attendance register for the period from 09.04.2012 to 19.11.2017, it is submitted that after thorough search by the office staff, the attendance register for the above period has been traced out and submitted by the Principal vide his letter No.29 Dt. 16.02.2024. It is worthwhile to mention here that the attendance register has been authenticated by the then Principal for the entire period i.e 09.04.2012 to 19.11.2017 and hence, their continuance in the school is established for the above period. The Xerox copy of said attendance register is annexed here with as Annexure-II.

7. That, as per report of Principal of the school, it is submitted that, the petitioners are signing a separate attendance register of the school for the period from 20.11.2017 and are performing duties in the school."

11. Although, the D.E.O., Balasore submitted a report before the

.

Government, however, the Government again rejected the prayer of

the Petitioners for regularisation of their service by virtue of the

impugned order dated 24.04.2025 at Annexure-8 to the writ

application. In the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 at Annexure-8,

the Opposite Party No.1 without referring to the report submitted by

the D.E.O., Opposite Party No.3 has come to a conclusion that the

Petitioners were not performing their duties voluntarily and they

were out of service for the period from 01.05.2011 to 08.04.2012.

Such a conclusion in Para-5 of the order dated 24.04.2025 has been

arrived at on the basis of the report of the Principal, Govt. Vocational

Junior College, Gopalpur, Balasore dated 13.04.2012. Learned Senior

counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture further contended that

although such letter is of the year 2012 and, the Tribunal vide

judgment dated 29.09.2023, after taking into consideration all

available materials, had categorically directed for regularisation

service of the Petitioners, ignoring the subsequent report of the

D.E.O. i.e Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party No.1 has come to

an erroneous conclusion that the Petitioners were discontinued suo

motu for the period from 01.05.2011 to 08.04.2012 and accordingly

rejected the representation of the Petitioners as well as the prayer

made for regularisation of their service.

.

12. With regard to the stand taken by the Government that the

Petitioners were discontinued suo motu from service on 01.05.2011

to 08.04.2012, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners, in course of his argument, referred to the report of the

D.E.O. dated 25.04.2025 under Annexure-8 to the writ application

and submitted before this Court that the D.E.O., Balasore, who had

carried out the inquiry pursuant to the order passed on 29.09.2023 of

this Court in WPC(OA) No.847 of 2019, has come to a definite

conclusion that although the attendance register from the period

01.05.2011 to 08.4.2012 was available, however, the same was not

authenticated by the then principal of the school. The said attendance

register was produced before the D.E.O., Balasore duly attested by

the principal and submitted vide letter No.29 dated 16.02.2024.

Similarly in Para-6 of the report it has been mentioned that the

missing attendance register for the period from 09.04.2012 to

09.12.2017 was submitted before the Opposite Party No.3 during

inquiry by the principal vide letter dated 16.02.2024. Such attendance

register was also duly authenticated by the principal for the entire

period from 09.04.2012 to 19.11.2017. Thus, the Opposite Party No.3

has come to a definite conclusion that the continuance of the

Petitioners in the school stands established on the basis of attendance

.

register produced before him during inquiry. Mr. Routray, learned

Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the

Opposite Party No.1 has erroneously and illegally rejected the prayer

of the Petitioners for regularisation of their service in a mechanical

manner by passing the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 without

taking into consideration the subsequent order passed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.09.2023 in WPC(OA) No.847

of 2019 as well as the report submitted of the D.E.O-Opposite Party

No.3 pursuant to order dated 29.09.2023. On such ground, learned

Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned

rejection order is unsustainable in law and a prayer was made to

quash such order.

13. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite

Party No.2 i.e. The Director Higher Secondary Education, Odisha,

Bhubaneswar. In the counter affidavit the Opposite Parties while

supporting the impugned rejection order dated 25.04.2025 at

Annexure-8 has stated that the Petitioners were discontinued suo

motu from service. As such, it was alleged that such suo motu

discontinuance from service is definitely a disqualification as was

directed by the learned O.A.T in its order dated 12.09.2013.

14. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

.

the Opposite Parties at this juncture contended that although order

dated 12.09.2013 of the learned O.A.T was not challenged further by

the State-Opposite Parties and the same has attained finality,

however, in view of the aforesaid order the Petitioners, to be

regularised in service, are required to satisfy the conditions

mentioned in order dated 12.09.2013. One of the conditions was that

the Petitioners must be continuing and performing their duties and

they have not abandoned/voluntarily quit the job. By referring to the

aforesaid conditions in order dated 12.09.2013 of the learned O.A.T,

the learned counsel for the State contended that since the Petitioners

were suo motu discontinued, which is evident from the report of the

principal of the institution in question, the Opposite Party No.1 has

come to the right conclusion by refusing the prayer of the Petitioners

for regularisation of their service and consequentially rejected the

representation of the Petitioners. As such, it was submitted that the

Opposite Party No.1 has not committed any legality in passing the

impugned order dated 25.04.2025 at Anenxure-8 and that the same

does not call for any interference by this Court.

15. In the course of his argument, learned counsel for the State,

further referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party

No.2, contended before this Court that pursuant to order dated

.

12.09.2013 of the learned O.A.T passed in O.A. No.1822 of 1993 a

committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Director,

Vocational Education, Odisha including five other members for the

purpose of scrutinization of the records in order to determine the

eligibility of the staffs working in different Government Vocational

Higher Secondary Schools. After such verification and scrutiny, the

committee prepared a report consisting of the names of 115 teaching

and non-teaching staff of Government Vocational Higher Secondary

School including the present Petitioners in five categories. Although,

the names of the Petitioners were short-listed by the aforesaid

committee, however, on further scrutiny it was found that the

Petitioners failed to comply with the conditions laid down by the

learned O.A.T in its order dated 12.09.2013. The Petitioners were

continuing from the initial date of appointment which is not disputed

by the State till 30.04.2011, thereafter, from 01.05.2011 to

08.04.2012, the Petitioners were discontinued suo motu. Since such

discontinuance disqualifies the Petitioners in terms of the order of the

learned Tribunal dated 12.09.2013, the case of the Petitioners was not

recommended for regularisation of their service.

16. He further contended that on the advice of the law department

as well as on the instruction of the Higher Education Department, a

.

new committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the then

Director, Vocational Education with three other members to conduct

a detailed inquiry. Such committee again examined all the previous

records and documents relating to the Petitioners as submitted by the

Principal of college. In such report also the names of the Petitioners

find place at Serial Nos.17, 18 & 19 and that such committee has also

opined that the Petitioners were voluntarily discontinued. Finally, it

was argued by the learned counsel for the State that since the

Petitioners did not adhere to one of the conditions imposed by virtue

of the order dated 12.09.2013 of the learned O.A.T, the Opposite

Party No.1 has not committed any illegality in rejecting their prayer

for regularisation of service by virtue of impugned order dated

25.04.2025, at Annexure-8 to the writ application. Accordingly, the

learned counsel for the State submitted that the present writ

application being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

17. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf

of the Petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State, on a

careful examination of the pleadings of the respective parties as well

as the documents submitted by both sides and on a careful analysis of

the submissions made, this Court observes that in the present writ

application, the Petitioners have challenged the legality and validity

.

of order dated 25.04.2025 at Annexure-8 whereby the Opposite Party

No.1 has rejected the prayer of the Petitioners for regularisation of

their service. On a careful examination of the record as well as the

pleadings of both sides, this Court found that there is not much

dispute on the factual side of the matter, except with regard to the

fact that the Opposite Parties have taken a specific plea regarding

voluntarily discontinuance of the service of the Petitioners for the

period from 1.05.2011 to 08.04.2012.

18. On a close scrutiny of the impugned order, it appears that the

Opposite Party No.1 while deciding the case of the Petitioners for

regularisation of their service took into consideration the order

passed by the learned O.A.T on 12.09.2013 as well as order dated

29.09.2023 passed in WPC(OA) No.847 of 2019. Further, it appears

that the Opposite Party No.1 has decided the case principally relying

upon the report of the principal of the institution with regard to

continuance and performance of the Petitioners in the institutions in

question. The report of the principal of the institution was submitted

vide letter No.175 dated 13.04.2012. The Opposite Party No.1 while

deciding the representation of the Petitioners pursuant to the order

passed by the Coordinate Bench on 29.09.2023 has placed much

reliance of the report of the institution, which is evident from Para-5

.

& 8 of the impugned order at Annexure-8. In Para-12 of the

impugned order, the Opposite Party No.1 has referred to the affidavit

filed by the D.E.O., Balasore, Opposite Party No.3 in WPC(OA)

No.847 of 2019, wherein the D.E.O., Balasore has specifically stated

that the principal and other members of the staff have failed to

produce the attendance register to the D.E.O during inquiry for the

period from 09.04.2017 to 19.11.2017.

19. Moreover, in para-13 of the impugned order the Opposite Party

No.1, referring to the letter of the Director Higher Education dated

26.12.2023, has crystallised the issue involved in the dispute to the

effect that it pertains to the continuance of the Petitioners for the

Period from 01.05.2011 to 08.04.2012. In the same paragraph, the

Opposite Party No.1, referring to the report of the D.E.O., Balasore

and the committee constituted by the DHSE and the affidavit filed by

the principal, has come to a conclusion that the continuance of the

Petitioners during the aforesaid period has not been established.

Accordingly, the prayer of the Petitioners for regularisation of their

service has been rejected by virtue of the impugned order

25.04.2025, at Annexure-8.

20. This Court on a careful examination of the documents annexed

to the writ application found that pursuant to the order dated

.

29.09.2023 passed in WPC(OA) No.847 of 2019 an inquiry was

carried out by the D.E.O., Balasore. Such latest inquiry report

pursuant to the order of this Court has been annexed to the present

writ application at Annexure-8. The contents of the aforesaid letter

have already been quoted in the preceding paragraphs. In view of the

specific finding of the D.E.O., Balasore upon production of

attendance register in course of inquiry by the principal after being

duly authenticated, leaves no room for doubt that the Petitioners were

never discontinued from service and that they were continuing in

service by discharging their duties at the institution in question. It is

shocking to learn that the Opposite Party No.1 while considering the

representation of the Petitioners as directed by this Court vide order

dated 29.09.2023 has not taken into consideration the latest inquiry

report which was conducted by none other than the D.E.O., Balasore,

Opposite Party No.3, who is Competent Authority. On the contrary,

the impugned rejection order dated 25.04.2025 was passed by the

Opposite Party No.5 by ignoring the report of the D.E.O. dated

25.04.2025 and basing upon the previous report of the principal of

the institution in question wherein in the year 2012 & 2014.

21. It has also been stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioners that the services of the similarly situated other employees

.

have already been regularised in the meantime except the present

Petitioners. So far, the present Petitioners are concerned their prayer

for regularisation of their service was rejected only on the ground

that the they had voluntarily discontinued from service.

22. So far as the issue with regard voluntarily discontinuance of

the Petitioners from service is concerned, it has been clearly dealt

with by the latest report of the D.E.O-Opposite Party No-3 vide letter

dated 23.02.2024 at Annexure-9. Such report of the D.E.O, Balasore,

who is the competent authority and was carrying out the inquiry

pursuant to the order dated 29.09.2023 of the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in WPC(OA) No.847 of 2019, cannot simply glossed over.

Thus, this Court has reason to believe that the Opposite Party No.1

has not considered the case of the Petitioners in terms of the order

dated 29.09.2023 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Moreover,

the Opposite Party No.1 has completely ignored the report of the

D.E.O. vide letter dated 23.02.2024. Such report does not find any

mentioned in the impugned rejection order.

23. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position, further

taking note of the latest report of the D.E.O dated 23.02.2024 at

Annexure-9, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order

dated 25.04.2025 at Anenxure-8. Accordingly, the same is hereby

.

quashed. Further, the Opposite Parties are directed to regularise the

service of the Petitioners as has been done in the case of similarly

situated employees in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal passed in

O.A. No.1822 of 1993 and the batch of other connected applications.

Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two

months. It is needless to mention here that upon such regularisation,

necessary consequential service as well as the financial benefits be

worked out and disbursed in favour of the Petitioners within two

months thereafter.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

(A.K. Mohapatra)

Judge Orissa High Court Cuttack

The 12th March, 2026

Rubi, Jr. Stenographer

.