Reservation rules apply to regular appointments, entitling candidates to claim reserved positions despite prior engagement as temporary staff.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned orders as at Annexures-8 & 12 and for a direction declaring the order of regularization as per Annexure-6 to be valid and in accordance with the orders/instructions of the State Government at Annexures-5 & 9 series thereby extending her all such financial and service benefits including deductions from the monthly salary towards GIS subscription in terms of Annexure-7 series and to pass such other orders as deemed just and proper.

2. As pleaded on record, the petitioner, while continuing as a Khalasi on NMR basis being engaged as such under the Executive Engineer, P.H. Division-II, Bhubaneswar prior to 12^th April, 1993, received an appointment as Khalasi on a consolidated pay of Rs. 3,500/- per month against a sanctioned vacant post and was directed to join in PH Sub- Division, Unit-IX, Bhubaneswar as per Annexure-1. It is pleaded that the State Government took a policy decision with due concurrence of the Finance Department and was pleased to regularize the NMR and DLR staff against 961 posts created in the work charged establishment in the regular scale of pay communicated as per Annexure-2. It is claimed that the petitioner was continuing as a Khalasi pursuant to Annexure-1 and at that time, by office order dated 30^th September, 2008 i.e. Annexure-3, she and others were appointed in the work charged establishment in a regular scale of pay. In the meantime, according to the petitioner, a provisional gradation list of work charged employees of the P.H. Division was published inviting objections from all such Class-IV employees and as per her reliable source, she was placed at the same position even thereafter,. The petitioner’s claim is that while considering the proposal received for regularization of service vis-à-vis work charged employees, opposite party No.1 referred the matter to the Finance Department and taking into account, the resolution dated 15^th May, 1997, it was clarified that while filling up the regular vacant posts, preference shall be given to the work charged employees and on the basis of such clarification, letter dated 22^nd November, 2016 i.e. Annexure-5 (series) was addressed to opposite party No.2, who later communicated the same to all the Superintending Engineers P.H. Circles and the Executive Engineers P.H. Divisions (pre-restructured) by letter dated 17^th December, 2016 stating therein that the work charged employees can only be brought over to the regular establishment as and when the vacancies would arise in the corresponding posts of regular establishment and in that regard, references is made to Annexure-5 series. The further pleading is that pursuant to the decision of the Government as per Annexure-5 series, opposite party No.4 by order dated 20^th March, 2017 regularized the services of the petitioner and others against the existing base level Group-D vacancies. Pursuant to the order of regularization as per Annexure- 6, the petitioner continued to receive salary which was being received, while engaged in the work charged establishment and such is the position as on date and the denial of the salary on any such ground of extra financial burden on the State exchequer and the decision as a result in view of Annexure-8 & 12 keeping the order of regularization vide Annexure-6 in abeyance is outrightly illegal, hence, the same are liable to be interfered with and quashed.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 and the same is perused and it is pleaded