Orissa High Court
Saubhagya Manjari vs State Of Orissa & Others .... Opposite ... on 19 October, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.8489 of 2023 & WP(C)Nos.18005,18006,18010,18011,
18012,18013,18014,18015,18016,18017,18018,18019,18020,
18021,18022, 18023,18024 & 18025 of 2015 and
WP(C ) No.14652 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
Saubhagya Manjari .... Petitioner
Samantaray
-versus-
State of Orissa & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners :M/s. S.K. Das, P.K. Behera,
N. Jena,Advocates
For Opp. Parties :M/s. S.K. Samal, AGA
(for Opp. Party No.1)
M/s. S.C. Rath, M.K. Parida
(for Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3)
M/s. A.K. Mohanty, Adv.
(for intervenor in W.P.(C )
No.18014 of 2015)
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 02.09.2023 and Date of Judgment: 19.10.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
// 2 //
2. Since all these Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia seeking a direction on Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to regularize the services of the Petitioners as against the posts in which they are continuing with further prayer to extend the benefit of seniority/promotion etc., all these matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the decision taken by the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology(in short, <The University) it was decided to start MCA Programme under the self- financing Scheme and notification to that effect was issued by the University on 25.08.1998. The proposal so submitted by the University to open MCA Programme under College of Agriculture Engineering and Technology under O.U.A.T with an intake capacity of 68 students per year through self financing scheme was approved by the Government in the Department of Agriculture vide its letter dt.08.12.1998 from the academic session 1998-99. Pursuant to the notification issued by the University on 25.08.1998. with due approval of the Government in the Page 2 of 18 // 3 // Department of Agriculture, advertisement was issued from intending candidates to fill up different posts in the self financing scheme for MCA course. All these petitioners basing on such advertisement issued by the University at different point of time were engaged as Asst. Professor in different discipline of the University on consolidated remuneration basis. Even through the Petitioners on their engagement as against the post of Asst. Professor in different discipline were paid consolidated remuneration, but subsequently, they were allowed regular scale of pay as provided against the posts in terms of the scale of pay prescribed by the University Grants Commission(in short, <UGC=) but without any increment. 3.1 Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that Writ Petitioners are continuing from their respective dates of appointment as Asst. Professor in different discipline of the University, petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.18013 of 2015 being the first appointee under the Scheme with his the date of joining as 15.03.1999. The respective dates of the joining of the Page 3 of 18 // 4 // Petitioners in the present batch of writ Petitions are as follows:
Case No. Name of the Date of appointment Name of the Name of the Petitioner post Subject WP(C)No 18005 Radhanath Hota 21.07.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18006 Subhadra Mishra 18.05.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18010 Tanuja Panda 21.08.2009 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18011 Sukanta Ku. 26.04.2007 Asst. Professor Bio-Information of 2015 (HOD) Pradhan WP(C)No 18012 Rashmiranjan 23.12.2003 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 Patra WP(C)No 18013 Abhimanyu Dash 10.03.1999 Asst. Professor Micro-Biology of 2015 WP(C)No 18014 Pratap Keshari 20.02.1997 Asst. Professor Micro-Biology of 2015 Pattnaik WP(C)No 18015 Ambuja Behera 20.02.1997 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18016 Prasanna Kumar 21.07.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 Pattanaik WP(C)No 18017 Binita Dash 28.08.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18018 Debaswapna Mishra 18.05.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18019 Sanjibanisudha 21.08.2009 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 Pattanaik WP(C)No 18020 Niranjan Badu 03.06.2005 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18021 Sarita Mohanty 18.05.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science of 2015 WP(C)No 18022 Sushamarani Marth 13.06.2008 Asst. Professor Bio-Information of 2015 WP(C)No 18023 Suryanarayan Rath 03.04.2007 Asst. Professor Bioinformatics of 2015 WP(C)No 18024 Sucharita 19.03.2008 Asst. Professor Bioinformatics of 2015 Balabantaray WP(C)No 14652 Sonali Das 31.08.2007 Asst. Professor Computer Science Page 4 of 18 // 5 // of 2017 WP(C)No 8489 Saubhagya Manjari 12.01.2009 Asst. Professor Micro-Biology of 2023 3.2 Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since basing on the decision taken by the University and by facing due recruitment process so issued by the University at different point of time, all the Petitioners were engaged as against the Post of Asst. Professor in different discipline and are in receipt of regular scale of pay as prescribed by the UGC, taking into account their long continuance as against the said post, they accrued a right of regularization in their favour. But instead of being allowed to continue for last so many years under the self financing scheme, when the University did not take any step to regularize the services of the Petitioners, the Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to direct the University to regularize the services of the Petitioners with other consequential prayers.
3.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in support of his aforesaid submissions with regard to the claim for regularization relied on decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi, AIR 2006, (S.C) 1806, State of Karnatak and Others V. M.L. Kesari and others, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2013) 14 SCC Page 5 of 18 // 6 // 65 & Amarkanta Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court passed in the Case of Subrat Narayan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Odish & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 18659 of 2016) as well as Dr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2016 (I) ILR CUT 373).
In the case of Uma Devi (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in Para -44 has held as follows:-
<44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals.
The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.= In the case of M.L. Keshari (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 8 and 13 has held as follows:-
<8. Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the Page 6 of 18 // 7 // services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (3) directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).
13. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of the respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to be given, in view of Umadevi (3), is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should not undertake an exercise within six months, as a general one-time regularisation exercise, to find out whether there are daily-wage/casual/adhoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfil the requirements mentioned in para-53 of Umadevi (3). If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularised. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of Respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one-time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3), their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years' service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower posts.= In the case of Nihal Singh (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 35 to 38 has held as follows:-
<35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining tin the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.
21. In the first instances, the petitioner and the other Election Commissioners were appointed when the work of the Commission did not warrant their appointment. The reason given by Respondent 1 (Union of India), that on account of the Constitution (61" Amendment) Act reducing the voting age and the Constitution (64th Amendment) and (65 Amendment) Bills relating to election to the Panchayats and Nagar Paliks, the work of the Commission was expected to increase and, therefore, there was need for more Election Commissioners, cuts notice. As has been pointed out by Respondent 2, the work relating to revision of electoral roll on account of the reduction of voting age was completed in all the States except Assam by the end of July 1989 itself, and at the Conference of the Chief Electoral Officers at Tirupati. Respondent 2 had declared that the entire preparatory work relating to the conduct of the then ensuing general elections to the Lok Sahba would be completed by August in the whole of the country except Assam. Further the Constitution (64th and 65th Amendment) Bills had already fallen in Parliament before the appointments. In fact, what Page 7 of 18 // 8 // was needed was more secretarial staff for which the Commission was pressing, and not more Election Commissioners. What instead was done was to appoint the petitioner and the other Election Commissioner on
16.01.1989. Admittedly, further the view of the Chief Election Commissioner were not ascertained before making the said appointments. In fact, he was presented with them for the first time in the afternoon of the same day ie, 16-10- 1989.
36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finance is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks.
37. We are of the opinion that neither the Governmnet of Punjab nor these public sector banks can continue such a practice consistent with their obligations to function in accordance with the Constitution. Umadevi (3) judgement cannot became a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities.
38. For all the abovementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to be absorbed in the services of the State. The appeal are accordingly allowed. The judgments under appeal are set aside.= In the case of Amarkanta Rai (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 8, 9, 11 to 14 has held as follows:-
<8. Insofar as contention of the respondent that the appointment of the appellant was made by the Principal who is not a competent authority to make such appointment and is in violation of the Bihar State Universities Act and hence the appointment is illegal appointment, it is pertinent to note that the appointment of the appellant as night guard was done out of necessity and concern for the College. As noticed earlier, the Principal of the College vide letters dated 11-3- 1988, 7-1-1993, 8-1-2002 and 12-7-2004 recommended the case of the appellant for regularisation on the post of night guard and the University was thus well acquainted with the appointment of the appellant by the then Principal even though the Principal was not a competent authority to make such appointments and thus the appointment of the appellant and other employees was brought to the notice of the University in 1988. In spite of that, the process for Page 8 of 18 // 9 // termination was initiated only in the year 2001 and the appellant was reinstated w.ef. 3-1-2002 and was removed from services finally in the year 2007. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, for a considerable time, the University never raised the issue that the appointment of the appellant by the Principal is ultra vires the rules of the BSU Act. Having regard to the various communications between the Principal and the University and also the educational authorities and the facts of the case, in our view, the appointment of the appellant cannot be termed to be illegal, but it can only be termed as irregular.
9. The Human Resources Development, Department of Bihar Government, vide its Letter dated 11-7-1989 intimated to the Registrar of all the Colleges that as per the settlement dated 26-4-1989 held between Bihar State University and College Employees' Federation and the Government it was agreed that the services of the employees working in the educational institutions on the basis of prescribed staffing pattern are to be regularised. As per sanctioned staffing partien, in Ramashray Baleshwar College, there were two vacant posts of Class IV employees and the appellant was appointed against the same. Further, Resolution No. 989 dated 10-5-
1991 issued by the Human Resources Development Department provides that employee working up to 10-5-1986 shall be adjusted against the vacancies arising in future. Although, the appellant was appointed in 1983 temporarily on the post that was not sanctioned by the State Government, as per the above communication of the Human Resources Development Department, it is evident that the State Government issued orders to regularise the services of the employees who worked up to 10-5-1986. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have examined the case of the appellant in the light of the various communications issued by the State Government and in the light of the circular, the appellant is eligible for consideration for regularisation.
XXX XXX XXX
11. Elaboration upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) Case and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L Kesari, this Court held as under (ML Kesari case SSC p 250, para 7)
7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularisation enunciated in Umadevi (3). if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possesses the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal., But where the persons employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.=
12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case, this Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab directed the absorption of the Page 9 of 18 // 10 // Special Police Officers in the services of the State of holding as under: (Nihal Singh Case, SCC pp. 79-80, paras- 35-36) "35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would he arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State. 36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the Various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in the banks to meet such additional burden Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks
13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3)3 is applicable to the facts of the present case.
There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of Clerk was regularised w.e.f. 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 3-1-2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 1.-1-2010.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the University for more than 29. years of the post of night guard and that he has served the College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.ef. 3-1-2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar).= Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court passed in the Case of Subrat Narayan Das & Ors. Vs. State of Odish & Page 10 of 18 // 11 // Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 18659 of 2016) as well as Dr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2016 (I) ILR CUT 373). In the case of Subrat Narayan Das (supra) this Court in Para 27 has held as follows:-
<27. Consequentially, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties should absorb the Petitioners on regular basis against sanctioned vacant posts taking into account the length of service rendered by them in their respective posts, in which they are continuing, without insisting upon them to undergo the rigors of the selection procedure, since they were engaged by following due process of selection in a transparent manner conducted by the Authority through the selection committee on contractual basis and are continuing for more than 16 years. The Petitioners being not backdoor entrants to the service and admittedly their performance having been found to be satisfactory for more than a decade and half, Opposite Party No.4 should extend all consequential benefits, as due and admissible in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months. Ordered accordingly.= In the case of Dr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra (supra) this Court in Para 22 has held as follows:-
<22. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the opposite parties should absorb the petitioner on regular basis against sanctioned vacant post taking into account the length of service rendered by him as a Lecturer in Mathematics in which he is continuing without insisting him to undergo the rigors of the selection procedure laid down under the BPUT Act and Rules framed thereunder reason being in the meantime the petitioner has become over aged and he has also been exploited for 20 years for no reasons though he has qualified in all the interviews conducted by the authority for his engagement on contractual basis. The petitioner being not a backdoor entrant to the service, the opposite party-University should extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months. The writ petition is allowed. No order to cost.= 3.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also relied on another decision of this Court rendered in the case of Page 11 of 18 // 12 // Dr. Sarbanarayan Mishra Vs. Orissa Unviersity of Agriculture & Technology and Others, so passed on 17.07.2008 in WP(C ) No.14049 of 2006.
3.5. It is contended that this Court in the aforesaid decision relying on the provisions contained under clause-49 of the Statute 1965 directed the university to consider the case of the Petitioner for his regularization as against a permanent post. The view expressed by this Court in paragraph-5 of the said order is quoted hereunder.
<5. It is argued by Mr. Dora, learned Senior counsel for the Opposite Party-University; that pursuant to the advertisement made on 28.01.2005, out of four, three petitioners have already applied for the said posts and instead of interfering in the writ application, this Court should allow the process of interview to continue where the cases of the petitioners shall be considered along with other candidates applying for the said posts.= 3.6. It is contended that such a direction was issued to the University in the aforesaid writ petition relying on the earlier order passed by this Court in 27.07.2005 in OJC No.17618 of 1997. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decisions as cited (supra), the petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization as against the post in which they are continuing for last so many years and this Court may pass appropriate direction in that regard.
Page 12 of 18
// 13 //
4. Mr. S.C. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the University in the present batch of Writ Petitions on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
4.1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the University that the proceeding of the academic council held on 24.10.1998, wherein it was decided to open MCA Programme on self financing scheme and accordingly the proposal was sent to the Government for approval. Government vide its letter dt.08.10.1998 though approved the opening of MCA programme under the University on self financing scheme, but accorded such approval with the condition that Government of Orissa in the Agriculture Department shall not extend any assistance for meeting any expenditure under the MCA Programme at any point of time. It is also contended that basing on the decision taken by the University so approved by the Government, the University issued advertisement to fill up the post of Asst. Professor and Associate Professor for MCA Programme and in the said advertisement, it was clearly indicated that the posts are on consolidated pay basis and will be for a contract period of three (3) years. The Petitioners' while were issued with the order of engagement, in such orders, it was clearly indicated that Page 13 of 18 // 14 // the appointment will not confer any right to claim any regular appointment in future.
4.2. It is also contended that the post against which the Petitioners are continuing under the self financing scheme are not sanctioned post of Government and all those posts were created by the University to impart teaching in the MCA Programme under self financing scheme. It is also contended that since the posts are created by the University to manage the teaching under the self financing scheme, their remuneration is made out of the fees collected from the students. The engagement of the Petitioners so made was renewed with issuance of order of engagement with usual break in service. It is accordingly contended that petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions have no continuance in their favour on regular basis and they are continuing against non-sanctioned posts. It is also contended that Board of Management of the University vide its resolution dt.02.09.2015 though has requested Government to accord necessary approval for creation of two(2) posts of Asst. Professor in the P.G. Deptt. of Microbiology in the College of Basic Science and Humanities under O.U.A.T but till date, no such approval has been received for creation of such posts in question. Similarly, in the year 2009 vide letter dt.09.03.2009, the Page 14 of 18 // 15 // University though submitted a proposal to the Agriculture Deptt. for creation of posts of Placement Officer in Class-II cadre, but till date, no such approval has been received from the Agriculture Deptt. of the Government. It is accordingly contended that since all the petitioners are continuing against non-sanctioned posts with break in service, though they are in receipt of the scale of pay as prescribed by the UGC, but since they are not continuing against any sanctioned post with due approval of the Government, the Petitioners are not eligible to get the benefit of regularization, as prayed for. The decision cited by learned counsel for the Petitioners are of no help as all the Petitioners are continuing against non-sanctioned post and against posts which have been created to prosecute to MCA Programme under the self financing scheme. It is accordingly contended that the Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization along with other benefits as prayed for in the present batch of writ petitions.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that all the petitioners were engaged as Asst. Professor in different discipline of the University pursuant to the advertisement issued by the University on different Page 15 of 18 // 16 // occasion. This Court finds that in the said advertisement so issued by the University at different point of time, it was clearly indicated that the posts in question are under the self financing scheme for MCA course. It is also indicated in the advertisement that all the posts are on consolidated pay basis and on contract basis for a period of three (3) years. Even though it is found from the record that all the Petitioners since on the same date of joining are continuing against the post in which they were engaged under the self financing scheme, but their continuance against those posts are not on regular basis and engagement of the Petitioners has been extended from time to time with usual break in service. Since it is found that the Petitioners are all continuing under the self financing scheme, though for different period extending upto 23 years in the case of the Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.18013 of 2015, but since no such material was produced before this Court with regard to the right of the petitioners to get the benefit of regularization, in view of their long continuance against any sanctioned post, this Court is unable to issue any positive direction to the University to regularize the services of the Petitioner placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra). Page 16 of 18
// 17 // 5.1. However, considering the fact that all the Petitioners are continuing as Asst. Professor for more than 10 year and one of them is continuing under the Scheme starting from 15.03.1999 onwards, this Court while disposing the batch of Writ Petitions, directs the University to frame a scheme to consider the case of the Petitioners for their regularization in services. It is directed that the University shall frame such a scheme within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and send the same for its approval to the Government in Agriculture Deptt. within the aforesaid time period. It is further directed that on receipt of the proposal /scheme from the University, Government in Agriculture Deptt. shall take a lawful decision on the same taking into account the long continuance of the Petitioners. Such a decision with regard to according approval of the scheme be taken by the Government in the Department of Agriculture within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of the same from the University. On receipt of such approval from the Government, if any, University shall take appropriate steps to regularize the services of the Petitioners in a time bound manner.
All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. Page 17 of 18
// 18 // Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th October,2023/sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 21-Oct-2023 15:43:22 Page 18 of 18