Arbitrary disengagement of a part-time lecturer denies rights and fair treatment, affirming that continued temporary employment must align with judicial orders and legality.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J -

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the Appellant i.e. Governing Body of Ispat College, Rourkela, assailing the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 19898 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent No.3 was allowed and the action of the College management in disengaging him was interfered with, coupled with a direction which, according to the appellant, virtually amounts to treating the respondent No.3 as a regular appointee. The present appeal also takes exception to the consequential dismissal of the review petition, being RVWPET No. 198 of 2024, by order dated 19.03.2025 These intra-court appeals, being W.A. No. 788 of 2025 and the connected W.A. No. 791 of 2025, are filed by the Appellant– Governing Body of Ispat College, Rourkela. W.A. No. 788 of 2025 assails the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 19898 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent No.3 was allowed and the action of the College management in disengaging him was interfered with, coupled with directions which, according to the Appellant, have the effect of treating Respondent No.3 as a regular appointee. W.A. No. 791 of 2025, arising out of the same lis, calls in question the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in RVWPET No. 198 of 2024, whereby the review petition preferred by the Appellant against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed. Both the appeals, involving common questions of fact and law, are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The factual backdrop, shorn of unnecessary details, reveals that Respondent No.3 was initially engaged as a part-time Lecturer in Physics in Ispat College, Rourkela, by order dated 12.11.1994 for a fixed academic term. Such engagement was purely temporary and continued on similar terms by a subsequent order dated 31.08.1995, pursuant to which Respondent No.3 submitted his joining report on 07.09.1995. Upon completion of the academic session 1995-96 and reduction of workload, the services of Respondent No.3, along with other part-time lecturers, were disengaged by order dated 10.02.1996, an order which was not assailed by him at the relevant point of time.

Subsequently, when a substantive post of Lecturer in Physics became available, the Governing Body issued an advertisement on 21.04.1997. Respondent No.3 participated in the selection process held on 27.06.1997 but was not selected, as another candidate secured higher merit and was appointed on regular basis. Aggrieved, Respondent No.3 initiated litigation by filing OJC No. 9966 of 1997, wherein interim protection was granted to keep one post vacant. Ultimately, the said writ petition was disposed of on 12.05.2005 with a direction to the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, to consider the representation of Respondent No.3 in the light of earlier decisions concerning similarly placed part-time lecturers. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the Director, Higher Education, passed an order dated 19.06.2006 directing reinstatement of Respondent No.3 as a Lecturer in Physics “without prejudice to the claim of others.” This order itself became the subject matter of further litigation between the parties. While the Governing Body challenged the said direction in W.P.(C) No. 9601 of 2006, Respondent No.3 sought its implementation by filing W.P.(C) No. 11663 of 2008. Both writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 01.07.2009, wherein this Court upheld the Director’s order and directed its implementation, while clarifying that such reinstatement would not prejudice the services of the regular