The judgment emphasizes the importance of fairness and equality in public employment, highlighting that the mode of recruitment need not be limited to newspaper advertisements.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for regularization of service by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government in Finance Department (Opposite Party No. 1), the Petitioner has preferred the instant application seeking the following relief:

“Under the circumstances, it is humbly prayed therefore that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 4.10.2018 passed by the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-25 ;

And further be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioner as has been done in the case of the Anadi Charan Tripathy and Bhaskar Ch. Roul, and keeping view the letter dated 21.6.2011 under Annexure-15 with all consequential service benefits;

Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper.”

2. The facts of the case, relevant only for deciding the present application are as follows:

Pursuant to instruction issued by the Director of Treasuries and Inspection, Orissa (Opposite Party No.2) by letter dated 4.8.2009, the Treasury Officer of Jajpur had appointed the Petitioner and another person as Peons against the contractual posts created by the Government in Finance Department Letter No. 97 dated 1.1.2009 at the consolidated salary of Rs.2550/–. As such the Petitioner was appointed and posted in the Sub-Treasury Office, Sukinda against the vacant post vide order dated 18.8.2009 of the Treasury Officer, Jajpur. On 16th April, 2011, the Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection, Orissa, Bhubaneswar directed all Treasury Officers to furnish a report as to whether the procedure such as calling of names from Employment Exchange, observation of ORV Act and advertisement in Newspapers had been properly followed at the level of Treasury Officer while filling of the contractual posts of Peons/Watcher-cum-Sweeper (WCS) in Treasury/ Special Treasury/Sub-Treasuries. Pursuant to such letter the Treasury Officer, by letter dated 21.6.2011 intimated that proper procedure had been followed while filling up the post of Peon in the Sub-Treasury, Sukinda. It was categorically stated that public notice was given in the Notice Board on 1.7.2009 inviting applications from persons interested to join in the post of Peon and WCS. Subsequently, eight numbers of applications were received and scrutinized by a committee formulated by the Treasury Officer. The candidates were called for an interview and basing on their performance in such interview, the petitioner and one Sanjay Kumar Parida were appointed as peons while one Paresh Kumar Patra was appointed as WCS at Sub-Treasury, Sukinda. While the matter should thus, the Government of Odisha, General Administration Department issued Resolution dated 17th September, 2013 with regard to regular appointment of existing contractual Group C and Group D employees upon satisfactory completion of six years of service by providing that they shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed and that a formal order of regular appointment shall be issued by the appointing authority. No action was taken in the matter of regularization of the service of the Petitioner and his services were only renewed from time to time. A gradation list was prepared for contractual employees. It is stated that some of the similarly placed employees as the Petitioner were regularized in service ignoring his case. The Directorate of Treasuries, in his letter dated 7.7.2014 addressed to Opposite Party No.1, furnished the list of contractual Class-IV employees, who had completed six years of contractual service for regularization of their services against Class-IV posts and in the said list, the name of the petitioner found place at Serial No. 9. Upon receipt of such letter, the Opposite Party No. 1 sought for certain clarifications, which were duly furnished by opposite party No.2. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner’s scale of pay was revised and he was also allowed to draw grade pay vide office o