Regularization of employee services is warranted where qualifications are verified and appointments were made by the competent authority, despite contractual provisions, especially when earlier judgments support such entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J :

This Appeal by the State and its functionaries seeks to call in question the learned Single Judge’s order dated 16.09.2021 whereby the following relief has been accorded to the Respondent-employee:

“The opposite parties are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner and grant all consequential service and financial benefits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.”

2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues that relief of the kind could not have been granted to the Respondent- employee in the face of the Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. He highlights that under Rule 5 of these Rules, the post in question attracts only contractual appointment and therefore, the question of regularization would not figure at all. He tells us that this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.19951 of 2020 disposed off on 09.09.2021, on the basis of which the impugned order has been structured and therefore, interference of this Court is eminently warranted. He also draws our attention to the application in I.A. No.785 of 2024 supported by an affidavit praying for condonation of a long delay of 867 days.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee opposes the Appeal contending that there were sanctioned posts and there were vacancies; the appointment is made by the competent authority and that his client does possess the requisite eligibility & qualification. He also contends that in the absence of lead decision being shown erroneous, by taking of specific plea in the Memo of Appeal, no fault can be attributed to the said decision.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. Firstly, the Appeal has been filed after brooking a long delay of 876 days delay; learned counsel for the Respondent-employee is more than justified in opposing the prayer for its condonation on the ground of enormity of longevity of delay and absence of plausible explanation therefor. Therefore, the application in I.A. No.785 of 2024 being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is.

4.2. Despite rejection of the application of condonation of delay, we undertake examination of the point canvassed at the Bar. It is not in dispute that there were posts and there were vacancies; the competent authority happens to be the Local Body, i.e., Municipality headed by the Executive Officer. Learned Penal counsel appearing for the Municipality very fairly tells us that the Executive Officer is the competent authority to make appointment under the extant Rules. It is not the case of Appellants that the Respondent-employee lacked eligibility & qualification when engagement was done. Obliviously, he does not. Therefore, it cannot be gainfully argued that an employee appointed by the competent authority, after verification of eligibility & qualification, to the existing vacancies against the sanctioned post, is not entitled to have his services regularized. Even State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi would not come to aid of Appellants, let alone the other decisions, whereby march of law has taken, namely, Jaggo v. UOI , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 & Sripal v. Nagar Nigam, Gajiabad decided on 31.01.2025 vide MANU/SC/0139/2025.

4.3. Learned AGA’s contention that under Rule 5(2) of 2013 Rules all posts would attract contractual incumbency and therefore regularisation could not have been directed, is bit diffi