Appointments must comply with statutory recruitment rules and uphold constitutional rights to equality and opportunity.

JUDGMENT :

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

The writ petition calls in question the order dated 24.04.2019 issued by the Registrar, Civil Court, Bhubaneswar communicating rejection of petitioner’s representation dated 16.05.2018 to regularize his services rejected by the learned District Judge, Khurda and order dated 22.06.2019 (as at Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the opposite party no.3-Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, keeping in abeyance earlier order dated 01.06.2019. The order dated 01.06.2019 was to continue the contract of engagement of petitioner.

2.1 The background facts of the case in brief are that an ‘advertisement’ was issued dated 27.04.2012 by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.3 for filling up of vacant posts of Junior Clerk (Record Keeper) and Junior Typist, one post each, to be engaged on contractual basis in the office of the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. The posts were earlier created pursuant to notification dated 17.05.2010 issued by the Government.

2.2 The petitioner was appointed as Junior Typist on contract basis to work in the office of the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for a period of one year with effect from 01.06.2012 in consolidated scale of pay of Rs.5200/-. The appointment order dated 21.05.2012 indicated the appointment to be purely temporary that can be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason thereof. The order dated 21.05.2012 was extended subsequently by orders dated 30.05.2013, 31.05.2014, 31.05.2015, 09.06.2016, 01.06.2017, 01.06.2018 and lastly on 01.06.2019 extending the period of contractual engagement of petitioner.

2.3 The order dated 01.06.2019 was kept in abeyance by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar by order dated 22.06.2019 that is also under challenge. The petitioner made a representation dated 16.05.2018 to the District Judge, Khurda seeking regularization of his services. The said representation was rejected by the District Judge, Khurda which is also under challenge.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the posts were created by the notification dated 17.05.2010, the Judge Family Court, Bhubaneswar advertised the posts on 27.04.2012 and issued appointment order dated 21.05.2012. The petitioner’s engagement was extended every year till 2019 though kept in abeyance by order dated 22.06.2019. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to benefits under the Odisha Group-C and Group-D posts (contractual appointment) Rules, 2013 for regularization of his services.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of opposite party no.1- State of Odisha represented through Secretary to the Government, Law Department, opposite party no.2-District & Sessions Judge, Khurda and opposite party no.3-Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar submits that the purported ‘advertisement’ dated 27.04.2012 was issued by the Judge, Family Court, Bbubaneswar who is not competent to do so. As per the Odisha District and Subordinate Courts’ Non-Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 to issue and such advertisement and undertake selection process. He relies on the provisions which are reproduced herein:

“3. Cadre- (1) The ministerial service of each of the District Courts and all Civil Courts there under shall constitute one separate cadre consisting of one post of District Court 1[Chief Administrative Officer] and such number of Posts of Senior Clerks (Head Clerk Grade), Senior Clerks, Junior Clerks, Typists, Copyists and other special Posts, as the Government may determine, from time to time, after consultation with the Court.

(2) T