[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Chhabi Kishore Dehury vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 20 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35931 of 2020
Chhabi Kishore Dehury .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA
Mr. B. P. Tripathy, Advocate for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 20.03.2026
No.
14. 1. Heard Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State besides learned
counsel for opposite party No.3.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned order dated 30th July, 2019 as at
Annexure-9 of opposite party No.1 and the decision rejecting
his candidature for induction into the Odisha Radiographer
Service vide proceeding dated 15th May, 2015 and order dated
18th November, 2020 i.e. Annexure-8 followed by a direction
for his regularization on the grounds stated.
3. As pleaded on record, the petitioner was engaged as X-
Ray Technician (contractual under NRHM) in Cath Lab,
Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar vide Annexure-2 and his
service was extended from time to time vide Annexures-3 and 4
and in the meantime, the Odisha Radiographer Service
(Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') arrived but was
modified in the year 2019. Referring to a copy of the
notification dated 8th March, 2018 i.e. Annexure-5. Mr. Biswal,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule
4(A)(1) of the Rules, it is stipulated that on the date of
commencement of the Rules, all the contractual Radiographers,
who have been duly recruited by the Societies/Schemes and
completed contractual service satisfactorily shall be deemed to
be regular Government employees as a onetime measure
subject to fulfilment of eligible criteria as prescribed in Rule 5
and since it is fulfilled, the petitioner is eligible for
regularization in terms thereof. Referring to Rule 5 of the
Rules, the further submission is that the modalities therein are
satisfied by the petitioner, hence, his service was to be
regularized but it has been followed by the impugned decision
by order dated 30th July, 2019 i.e. Annexure-9. It is contended
that two others who are equally situated and employed on
similar lines like the petitioner have been regularized vide
Annexure-15 to the rejoinder affidavit and therefore, the
decision of opposite party No.1 rejecting the regularization
under Annexure-9 cannot be sustained in law.
4. Recorded the submission of learned counsel for
opposite party No.3 with reference to the counter affidavit.
5. Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State refers to the
counter affidavit and justifies the decision as per Annexure-9.
It is pleaded therein that the petitioner was engaged after a
walk-in interview and it was without any competitive
examination held and also not in compliance with the ORV Act
and Rules in terms of the notification of the Government in
Health and Family Welfare Department dated 7th March, 2019
and therefore, his regularization deserves no consideration. In
reply to the above, Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that as against one post, the petitioner was
appointed on contractual basis, hence, there was no scope to
consider any such reservation as per ORV Act and Rules and
that apart, two other appointees under the scheme have been
regularized. While demanding parity, Mr. Biswal, learned
counsel cited a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India
and others Vrs. Munshi Ram 2022 (10) SCR 1135.
6. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner received
appointment under a scheme. It is not in denial either that such
engagement of the petitioner was by means of a walk-in
interview. From Annexures-3 and 4 series, it is revealed that
the service of the petitioner was extended from time to time and
such engagement was consequent upon Annexure-1 as X-Ray
Technician on contractual basis. The question is, whether,
under the circumstances as above, the petitioner is entitled to
regularization in service. The Rules in place allows contractual
Radiographers and their services to be regularized upon
fulfilment of the criteria fixed. A reference was earlier made to
Rule 4(A)(1) of the Rules and also the relevant provisions with
regard to the modalities for induction of Radiographers into the
cadre. The Court takes cognizance of the fact that there has
been regularization of service of two others, namely, Minati
Santi and Rojalin Parida vide Annexure-15 to the rejoinder
affidavit. The petitioner having been appointed under the
scheme, even though, on contractual basis, according to the
Court, could not have been singled out. Furthermore, when one
post was available and as against the said post, the petitioner
was engaged, the ORV Act and Rules could not have been
complied with. That apart, when regularization has been
allowed vide Annexure-15, the Court is also the view that the
opposite party No.1 cannot be allowed to take a stand that the
petitioner has not been engaged by a regular recruitment
process. In the considered view of the Court, even such
engagement of the petitioner is not illegal and at best, it can be
treated as irregular. Nevertheless, the petitioner has been
allowed to continue in the post ever since appointed in the year
2011. Against the aforesaid backdrop, the Court considering the
counter of the State and submission of Mr. Biswal, learned
counsel for the petitioner is of the ultimate view that the
petitioner's service deserves to be regularized.
7. In fact, Mr. Biswal, learned counsel referring to the
decision in Munshi Ram (supra) submits that any such
rejection of candidature of the petitioner amounts to
discrimination in view of Annexure-15 to the rejoinder
affidavit. The Apex Court in the above decision held and
observed that there cannot be distinction in respect of the
employees working in an establishment. In fact, in the above
noted case, the employees working under the employer,
namely, Railway Board in different Zones/Divisions were
treated differently and under such circumstances, the Apex
Court concluded that all are to be treated equally without
discrimination. Applying the above ratio and in view of the
plea of the petitioner seeking regularization and since two
others are already regularized in view Annexure-15, the fact
which has been admitted in para-8 of the reply affidavit of
opposite party No.5 filed to the rejoinder, the in escapable
conclusion of the Court is that nothing remains for opposite
party No.1 to consider except directing his regularization.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 30th July, 2019
at Annexure-9 is hereby set aside with a direction to opposite
party No.1 to immediately regularize the service of the
petitioner undertaking the above exercise at the earliest and
concluding the same preferably by the end of April, 2026.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
