Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Unknown vs W.P.( C.M.P on 29 May, 2020

Author: Biswanath Rath

Bench: Biswanath Rath

          W.P.(           C.M.P.
                            W.P.(C).
                                 No.1360
                                     No.12016
                                         of 2015
                                               of 2020




3   29.05.2020        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Senapati,
                  the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
                     Fact involving the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed
                  as ad-hoc Lecturer in Junior level, vide Annexure-2 with specific
                  condition indicated therein. Her service was also extended lastly,
                  vide Annexure-6 again, however with certain stipulation there.
                  Neither the condition in the initial appointment order, vide
                  Annexure-2     nor    have   the   further   stipulations   ever   been
                  challenged. Thus, the petitioner stood estopped from challenging
                  the conditions impugned imposed in 2014 and that too after
                  enjoying the post for almost six years. For her completion of six
                  years    of service   seeking application of provision       in Odisha
                  Group-B post (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, petitioner
                  sought for regularization of her service in the post she is holding.
                  Learned State Counsel while objecting to such request also
                  submits that from the pleadings, it does not appear if such posts
                  are already covered under the advertisement of the OPSC in the
                  month of February, 2020 and it appears, the petitioner has
                  suppressed this aspect. Considering that the writ petition confines
                  to the claim for regulation, it appears, instead of approaching the
                  competent authority, the petitioner has straight way approached
                  this Court.
                      In the circumstance and in the event the post held is not
                  advertised for regular appointment and no selection is made in
                  in the meantime, the opposite party no.1 is directed to treat the
                  writ petition as representation at the instance of the petitioner and
                  take decision on the request of the petitioner and complete the
                  entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of
                  communication of copy of this order along with copy of the writ
                  petition by the petitioners. O.P.1 while considering the case of the
                           -2-




      petitioner for regularization shall also look into the applicability of
      the above Rule to the case of the petitioner at hand. In the
      meantime, if the post is not filled up through regular selection,
      competent authority may also take decision for continuance of the
      petitioner till regular absorption of the vacancies at least.
          The writ petition stands disposed of with the observation
      and direction made hereinabove.

                                          ..................................

BISWANATH RATH,J sks