Prolonged service in essential roles transforms temporary positions into regular ones, necessitating regularization, despite initial stipulations against it.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

1. Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court essentially for a direction to the OP-University and to its officials to regularize their services or absorb them in regular service with effect from the dates of their initial engagement. All they participated in a walk-in-interview, pursuant to advertisement dated 10.12.2012 at Annexure-1. That was held on 08.01.2013 on the instructions of the Vice-Chancellor. The Director of DDCE (Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education) prepared the select list on 15.01.2013 and name of the petitioners figured therein. Petitioner-Ms. Mitali Sahoo was selected as Librarian and other two petitioners were selected as Junior Executive. This document or its content is not disputed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that his clients, having been duly appointed on the authority of the Vice-Chancellor after due selection, have been serving the University uninterruptedly and sans any complaint. The Syndicate, vide Resolution dated 21.06.2017, has accorded Grade Pay, inter alia, to these petitioners, and that vide decision dated 28.10.2014 admitted these petitioners to EPF Scheme. They have been regularly working and the University has been in the perineal requirement of their services, which fact is vouched by their very continuance beyond a decade. Therefore, the counsel submits, they should be directed to be regularized in service. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court to the relevant provisions of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989, the Orissa University Fist Statutes and the Orissa University Appointment and Promotion of Non-Teaching Employees Rules, 1991. She also pressed into service Apex Court decision in Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan , AIR 1989 SC 1582 more particularly paragraphs 18, in support of her contentions.

3. A battery of panel lawyers and learned AGA oppose the petition as under:

Petitioners have not been appointed by the competent authority; there are no sanctioned posts against which their services have been engaged all through; the higher rank officials like Librarian & Assistant Executives ordinarily cannot claim regularization of their services without a due selection process, which is a sine qua non. Petitioners are not justified in placing reliance on Annexure-13 series, whereby lower rank employees have been regularized in service, the facts of their cases being miles away from that of petitioners herein. They too pressed into service the decision of Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Lastly, they submit that in the very engagement orders it is specifically stipulated that the petitioners would not seek regularization of their services, which were only for a short period. They press into service this stipulation seeking dismissal of petitions.

4. Having heard leaned advocates appearing for the parties, having perused the petition papers and also having adverted to law & rulings, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons.

4.1. The first submission of learned panel advocates appearing for the University that these petitioners were not appointed by the competent authority, namely, the Registrar, is liable to be rejected for more than one reason:

(i) Section 21 (1) of 1989 Act, as it obtained before amendment did read as under:

“21. Appointment of Officers, teachers and other employees of the University:

(1) Unless otherwise specified in this Act, all officers of the University, shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of Director, the Registrar, one member selected by the Syndicate from among themselves and, wherever necessary, two experts