HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
P. Patnaik, J.
Smt. Kalpana Bal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp.parties
W.P.(C) No.5248 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.5247 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.5249 of 2017
Decided On : 12-05-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
P.PATNAIK, J.
Relief sought for in the aforesaid writ applications are more or less similar, with the consent of the respective parties all the writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed of in this common order.
2. The petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions have inter alia prayed for direction to the opposite parties to allow them to continue as Assistant Commuter Operator till their services are regularized as per the contractual appointment scheme, 2013 floated by the Government of Odisha.
3. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Registrar of Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (in short referred to as ‘OUAT’) for filling up of the post of Assistant Computer Operator ( hereinafter called as “ACO”) on contractual basis, the petitioners applied for the post in the prescribed form and in prescribed manner. After coming through the process of selection they were issued with order of appointment in their favour on 02.01.2015 calling upon them to join the post and accordingly, the petitioners joined on the said posts. Though the nomenclature of the term of appointment was contractual for a fixed term, but the petitioners were granted annual increment as per the Government of Odisha, General Administration Department Resolution dated 12.11.2013. Thereafter their appointments were extended giving one day artificial break with the same terms and conditions in the previous appointment order. Further, the service period of the petitioners were extended on the basis of recommendation for continuance of the petitioner by opposite party No.4, but to the utter surprise the recommendation of opposite party no.4 was returned by opposite party no.3 with remarks that ( it may be preferable if the work will be outsourced to a man power agency. It has been averred in the writ petition that Odisha Group C and Group D post (Contractual Appointment) Rule 2013 has come into effect with effect from 18.11.2013 wherein it has been envisaged that the contractual employees are to be regularized after completion of six years of satisfactory service. Since the OUAT being created and funded by the State of Odisha, the Government Rules are applicable to the OUAT. The OUAT has allowed extension of 13 nos of ACO those who have completed six years of service in office order dated 01.10.2016 and the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons have been turned down on the ground that outsourcing will be useful for the organization as evident from Annexur-7 to the writ application Though the post of A.C.O. is very much essential and one contractual employee cannot be replaced by any contractual employee but for the reasons best known to the opposite parties the extension has not been issued in favour of the petitioner which has compelled the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievance.
An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner with regard to applicability and adoption of General Administration Department Notification dated 12.11.2013 and in the said affidavit it has been inter alia mentioned that OUAT administration has not only accepted and adopted the Odisha Group C & Group D posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, but also followed the subsequent circular issued on 06.02.2015 basing on which various appointments have been made as per Annexures-8 and 9 series of the said affidavit. Further notification has been published in the daily The Samaj on 05.09.2017 vide Anneure-10 to the Additional Affidavit regarding engagement of Data Entry Operator which post is synonymous with Assistant Computer Operator with qualification.
Mr.S.K.Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as per the settled principle of law a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual casual employee
Secretary, State of Karnatak- v.-Uma Devi
State Bank of India and others-vrs.—S.N.Goyal
Gridco Limited and Another v.-Sadananda Doloi and others
National Fertilizers v.Somvir Singh
Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and another
Surendra Kumar and others-v-Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and others
Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai-v.- R.Govindaswamy and others
Less than five years of service does not justify claims for regularization of contractual employment under relevant government rules.
Continuous and necessary service by contractual employees requires consideration for regularization, transcending mere contractual limitations, provided sanctioned posts exist.
High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution will not issue directions for regularization unless employees claiming regularization had been appointed in pursuance of a regular r....
Long-serving contractual/casual employees (10+ years) on integral roles via proper selection entitled to regularization consideration, critiquing misuse of precedents to deny legitimate claims.
The court emphasized that long uninterrupted service in governmental roles, despite initial irregular appointments, warrants consideration for regularization in accordance with established legal prec....
Long-serving contractual employees on sanctioned posts entitled to regularization consideration despite procedural informalities.
Long-serving employees (>10 years) on sanctioned posts via proper selection entitled to regularization consideration, per Uma Devi clarified in Jaggo.
The court ruled that long-serving contractual employees cannot be denied regularization based solely on contractual labels, emphasizing fair treatment under constitutional principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.