IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14178 of 2022 Himanshu Kumar Nath …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Jena, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opp. Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

11.11.2025 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.21.03.2022 so passed by Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected.

4. It is contended that basing on the letter issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 on 10.09.2007 under Annexure-1 and on creation of different posts, which includes two posts of Jr. Clerk, an advertisement was issued by Opposite Party No.4 on 23.09.2012 inviting applications to fill up two posts of Jr. Clerk along with other posts under Annexure-3.

4.1. It is contended that in terms of the said advertisement issued under Annexure-2 and on coming out successful, Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide order dtd.02.05.2011 under Annexure-4. In terms of the said order, Petitioner submitted his joining on 02.05.2011 as reflected under Annexure-5.

4.2. It is also contended in the gradation list of contractual employees submitted by the office of Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-6-Series, Petitioner’s name was reflected at Sl. No.3 with his date of joining as

02.05.2011 on contractual basis.

4.3. It is contended that on the face of such selection and appointment on contractual basis w.e.f. 02.05.2011, Petitioner when was not regularized in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 so issued under Annexure-7 and further resolution issued on 16.01.2014 under Annexure-8, Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.31898 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.01.11.2021 directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, taking into account the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner after creation of the post vide letter under Annexure-1 was appointed by facing due recruitment process on contractual basis, taking into account his long continuance, not only his case is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, M.L. Keshari & Amarkanti Ray, but also his claim for regularization is covered as per the Resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexures-7 & 8. But Opposite Party No.1 without proper appreciation of the order passed by this Court and the stipulation contained in the Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexures-7 & 8, rejected the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order dtd.21.03.2022 under Annexure-11 on the ground that while providing appointment to the Petitioner on contractual basis, ORV Act and Rules was never followed. 4.5. It is contended that since on creation of the post vide Annexure-1, an advertisement was issued under Annexure-3 and in terms of the said advertisement, Petitioner got the benefit of appointment on contractual basis vide order dtd.02.05.2011 under Annexure-4, with regard to non-following of the provisions of ORV Act and Rules, no fault can be attributed to the Petitioner. Since Petitioner was duly selected and appointed vide order dtd.02.05.2011 under Annexure-4 and he is continuing on contractual basis till date, his claim is squarely covered by the stipulation contained in resolution dtd.

17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexures-7 & 8.

4.6. It is also contended that for the laches on the part of the Opposite Parties in not following the provisions of ORV Act and Rules w