Orissa High Court
Arabinda Acharya vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10276 of 2020,
W.P.(C) No.10821 of 2020
W.P.(C) No. 11001 of 2020,
W.P.(C) No. 11004 of 2020,
W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2020, &
W.P.(C) No.19333 of 2022
Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.
---------------
W.P.(C) No.10276 of 2020
Arabinda Acharya .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.10821 of 2020
Raj Narayan Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 11001 of 2020
Amit Kumar Mund .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11004 of 2020
Meera Kumari & Anr. .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2020
Madhusmita Pradhan .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Page 1 of 26
W.P.(C) No. 19333 of 2022
Raj Narayan Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K Panda, Mr. A.K Biswal,
Mr. A.K Mohapatra, Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
M/s. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, & T.K.
Kamila, Advocates with
Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Advocate
(For OLIC]
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th 7 November, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
All these writ applications involve common facts and law and, having been heard together, are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For brevity, the facts of W.P.(C) No. 10276 of 2020 are being referred to in this judgment.
Page 2 of 26
3. The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking the following relief:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 25.11.2019 vide Annexure-6 and consequential agenda for outsourced employment as at Annexure-8 dated 06.01.2020. And further direct the opposite parties that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for regularization, taking into consideration the memorandum submitted by the Managing Director before the Board of Directors. And further to pay revised scale of pay and grade pay as have been extended to regular employees of the Corporation.
And pass any other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray."
FACTS
4. An advertisement was issued on 09.11.2011 by opposite party No.2 - Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (OLIC) inviting applications from intending candidates to fill up different posts under Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama (BKVY-DBSK) on a contractual basis through a walk-in interview. Three posts of Computer Assistant were notified, carrying consolidated remuneration of Rs. 7500/-. The petitioner appeared in the interview held on 20.11.2011, whereafter a list containing 32 candidates Page 3 of 26 was prepared. Consequently, the petitioner was offered appointment as per letter dated 14.12.2011. 4.1 It was mentioned in the letter of engagement that the engagement was purely for the purpose of the Project Management Unit (PMU) for Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama and had no relationship with the regular establishment of OLIC. Further, the offer was said to be valid for a period of one year from the date of joining, based on the terms of the contract. The engagement of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year from time to time. On 26.11.2018, the petitioner, having completed six years of service in the said post, submitted a representation before opposite party No.2 with a prayer for regularization of services. Since no action was taken, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4414 of 2019. By order dated 07.11.2019, this Court directed the opposite party authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a period of two months. On 25.11.2019, the Joint Secretary to the Government in the Department of Water Resources wrote to opposite party No.2 that the manpower for the State Project Unit (SPU) and Divisional Project Unit (DPU) should Page 4 of 26 be engaged on redeployment and outsourcing basis. Therefore, contractual engagement should be discouraged and replaced by outsourced manpower before submission of subsequent renewal. By order dated 17.02.2020, opposite party No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the same had no merit, as the appointment of the petitioner was purely on a contractual basis, having no relationship with the regular establishment of OLIC. 4.2 According to the petitioner, though there are regular vacancies available, the action of the authorities in not regularizing his services is illegal and unacceptable. By order dated 29.02.2020, opposite party No.2 decided not to extend the engagement of the petitioner beyond 31.03.2020. This Court, by order dated 05.05.2020, while hearing the present writ application, directed the authorities to maintain status quo in respect of the service of the petitioner. 4.3 Standing on a similar footing as the petitioner, several other writ applications have also been filed by persons engaged under the same project and under identical terms and conditions of service. A list of such petitioners, Page 5 of 26 indicating their respective case numbers and the posts in which they are working, is presented in tabular form below:
Case number Petitioner name Working as
WPC No. 10276/ 2020 Arabinda Acharya Computer Asst.
WPC No. 10821/2020 Raj Narayan Behera Asst. Manager
WPC No. 11001/2020 Amit Kumar Mund Manager (Procurement)
WPC No. 11004/2020 Meera Kumari Jr. Quality Control Engineer
WPC No. 11004/2020 Jagabandhu Moharana Jr. Quality `Control Engineer
WPC No. 11007/2020 Madhusmita Pradhan Data Entry Operator
STAND OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT
5. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit refuting the averments of the writ application as follows:
5.1 BKVY-DBSK started its operation during the year 2010-11 under OLIC for installation of Deep Bore Wells in a massive way in hard rock/hilly tracts of 17 districts in the first phase. Later, it was extended to 26 districts during the year 2011-12. Since it was not possible to operationalize the said scheme with the existing staff of OLIC, a proposal was submitted to the Finance Department for approval of PMU so that additional manpower could be hired on redeployment and outsourcing basis. The Finance Department approved the proposal and communicated to OLIC vide letter dated 27.10.2011 for setting up a State Project Unit (SPU) and 10 Divisional Project Units (DPUs) for effective monitoring of Page 6 of 26 works under BKVY-DBSK by sanctioning 26 posts for SPU and 100 posts for 10 DPUs. Such sanction was with the stipulation that engagement for the said posts shall be on redeployment from OLIC/outsourcing basis. The person concerned who desired to join would submit an undertaking in terms of Finance Department Circular No. 55764/F dated 31.12.2004, and engagement would be for the project period only, with no claim whatsoever beyond that period. 5.2 After extending the scheme to 26 districts, another proposal was submitted to the Finance Department for constitution of five more DPUs and creation of posts. The Finance Department, in its letter dated 14.02.2012, agreed with the proposal and created 50 posts, out of which 40 posts were to be filled up on redeployment basis and the rest on outsourcing basis by OLIC.
5.3 As per concurrence of the Finance Department, OLIC was instructed to engage personnel on redeployment from OLIC/outsourcing basis and not on a contractual basis.
The Government had also communicated the observations of the Finance Department to opposite party No.2 regarding the Page 7 of 26 proposal for extension of SPU and DPU for the period from 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 in the following manner:
"Manpower for SPU and DPU should be made on redeployment and outsourcing basis. Therefore, contractual engagement should be discouraged and replaced by outsourcing manpower before submission of subsequent renewal."
As per the terms and conditions laid down in Clause 12(1) of the agreement, the contractual engagement of the petitioner ceased w.e.f. 31.03.2020. However, in view of the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ application, the petitioner has been allowed to work in OLIC pending further orders.
5.4 The Finance Department had agreed for constitution of the SPU and DPU on the condition that the posts shall be filled up by redeployment or on outsourcing basis and that the candidates who desired to join would submit an undertaking in terms of the Finance Department Circular dated 31.12.2004, acknowledging that the engagement was for the project period only and that there would be no claim whatsoever beyond the project period. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an undertaking that in future he would not claim regular scale of pay and other Page 8 of 26 allowances. As such, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation after completion of six years is devoid of merit. STAND OF OLIC
6. OLIC has filed a counter more or less on similar lines as the State. It is stated that the contractual engagement of the petitioner was purely for the PMU of the scheme and had no relationship with the regular establishment of OLIC. The engagement of the petitioner was on contract basis with a monthly consolidated remuneration of Rs. 7500/-, and the offer was for a period of one year from the date of joining. Once the petitioner accepted the engagement letter without protest and submitted an undertaking that in future he would not claim regular scale of pay and other allowances for continuing in the said post, he is estopped from claiming regularisation. As such, his claim for regularisation is misconceived. 6.1 The engagement of the petitioner was initially for a period of one year and was extended for similar periods with the concurrence of the Finance Department. In the engagement orders issued to the petitioner, it was clearly stipulated that the engagement was for the scheme and had Page 9 of 26 no relationship with the regular establishment of OLIC. Subsequently, by letter dated 25.11.2019, the Government directed that manpower for SPU and DPU should be made on redeployment and outsourcing basis, and contractual engagement should be discouraged and replaced by outsourced manpower before submission of subsequent renewal. As per Clause 12.1 of the agreement signed by the petitioner, his contractual engagement ceased w.e.f. 29.02.2020, but he is continuing in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The claim for regularisation made by the petitioner is contrary to law, and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi1, he has no right to continue in the post after the contract period is over. As regards the Odisha Group 'C' and Group 'D' Contractual Employees (Appointment) Rules, 2013, the same is not applicable as the petitioner was appointed much prior to their coming into force. Moreover, the petitioner was engaged under a project-based scheme.
1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 Page 10 of 26 SUBMISSIONS
7. Heard Mr. D.K. Panda, Mr. A.K Biswal and Mr. A.K Mohapatra learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State; and Mr. A.K Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for OLIC (opposite party No.2).
8. Mr. Panda would argue that there is no dispute that the petitioners were engaged on contractual basis and that their services were renewed from time to time. This shows that work is available in the establishment. Only because the petitioners laid claim for regularization of their services, the authorities, adopting a vindictive attitude, decided to terminate their services by issuing the impugned order under Annexure-15. Mr. Panda further submits that the authorities have proposed to engage persons on outsourcing basis against the posts in which the petitioners are engaged, which is contrary to law, as one set of temporary employees cannot be replaced by another set.
9. Mr. Panda further submits that even though there is no regular post in the establishment bearing the same designation as assigned to them, there exist equivalent posts Page 11 of 26 with identical or substantially similar eligibility conditions. He therefore, contends that the services of the petitioners ought to be regularised against such equivalent sanctioned posts. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19333 of 2020 has, in addition, challenged the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Computer Programmer, asserting that the eligibility criteria prescribed therein are identical to those applicable to the post in which he is presently working. Similar contentions have been advanced by the petitioners in the connected writ petitions.
10. Mr. Panda has cited the following judgments in support of his contentions:
"1.Chander Mohan Negi v. State of H.P.2
2.Jaggo v. Union of India3
3.Shripal v. Nagar Nigam4
4. Balabhadra Majhi v. State of Odisha and Ors."5
11. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, would argue that the petitioner was engaged under a scheme for a particular period. It is immaterial that his engagement was renewed from time to time. Mere renewal does not take away the fact that his 2 (2020) 5 SCC 732 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 5 MANU/OR/0949/2022 Page 12 of 26 engagement was temporary and on contractual basis. Having signed an undertaking that he shall not claim regularization in future, he is estopped from laying such a claim.
12. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for OLIC, makes more or less similar arguments as the State counsel and additionally submits that OLIC, being a public sector undertaking, has to abide by the directions of the State Government, which decided to replace contractual employees with outsourced employees. He further submits that the petitioner was aware of the nature of his engagement from the very beginning and had also signed an undertaking not to claim regularization in future. As such, he is estopped from doing so at this stage.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
13. The facts as laid are not disputed. The petitioner applied for engagement pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.11.2011 and, having undergone a selection process, was engaged. The letter dated 14.12.2011 issued to the selected candidates reads as follows:
"Consequent upon your provisional selection for the aforesaid position the Managing Director, Orissa Lift Page 13 of 26 Irrigation Corporation Limited is pleased to offer you to join in Project Management Unit (DPU) of BKVY Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama on contract basis with monthly/consolidated remuneration of Rs. 7500/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred) only per month. This offer is for a period of one year from the date of joining based on the terms of contract subject to verification of all original documents/testimonials stated in your original application. The engagement is purely for the purpose of PMU for Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama and has no relationship with regular establishment of OLIC."
14. It is also not disputed that the petitioner submitted undertaking that he would not claim regular scale of pay in future. His engagement was extended/renewed from time to time on a yearly basis. From the stand taken by the State as well as OLIC, it is evident that the basic objection raised by them is that the engagement was for a project under the scheme called BKVY-DBSK. The order dated 27.10.2011 of the Government in the Department of Water Resources (Annexure-A/2 to the counter filed by OLIC) contains the modalities for filling up the posts and states:
"The above engagement is only for the project period and person concerned who desires to join will submit an undertaking in terms of Finance Deptt. Circular No.55764-F dt:31.12.2004 (copy enclosed). There will be no claim whatsoever beyond the project period."
15. A model form of undertaking is also enclosed, stating inter alia:
Page 14 of 26
"Further, I do hereby give an undertaking that in future I shall not claim regular scale of pay and other allowances for continuing in the said post merely on the ground that I have been given a contract appointment and my contractual appointment has been extended from time to time."
16. Two points therefore emerge clearly: (i) the engagement is said to be for the project period only; and (ii) the petitioner had given an undertaking not to claim regularization in future. As to the first point, the Court must examine whether the nature of the work performed by the petitioner though described as project-specific can legitimately be treated as perennial i.e, of a recurring and continuing character intrinsic to the functioning of OLIC.
17. It is common ground that the petitioner was engaged as a Computer Assistant. A Computer Assistant may not be described, in a narrow sense, as the core or primary technical function of the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation (which centrally concerns hydrological engineering, pump and lift installations and allied field works). Yet to approach the matter only through the prism of "core" versus "non-core"
would be to ignore the realities of modern institutional functioning. The performance of clerical, data-processing, record-keeping and IT-related tasks is pervasive and Page 15 of 26 continues to be necessary for the effective discharge of the organization's mandated activities. In the present case the duties performed by the petitioner were continuous, ongoing and integral to the day-to-day administration and monitoring of the scheme. Thus, even if the post of Computer Assistant is not a technical core post in the narrowest sense, it is nevertheless a position the duties of which are recurrent, necessary and enduring in the functioning of OLIC and its project units.
18. Having regard to the continuous nature of the work performed, this Court is satisfied that the institution of the label "project" or the categorisation of the engagement as contractual cannot, by itself, justify denial of regular employment or be used as a device to avoid statutory or organizational responsibility. The mere fact that a function is common to many institutions does not make it temporary in character if, in reality, the function is continuously required by that institution. The settled law is that one set of temporary employees should not be replaced by another set of temporary employees where the posts and functions are ongoing and necessary; a State instrumentality cannot Page 16 of 26 wriggle out of its obligations by repeatedly relabeling enduring functions as "temporary" or by shifting from one non-regular mode of engagement to another. Reference may be made to the principle articulated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors6., that ad hoc or temporary employees should not be replaced by other ad hoc or temporary employees but must be replaced by regularly selected employees to avoid arbitrary action by the appointing authority.
19. The respondents have relied on Uma Devi (Supra) to contend that renewal of a temporary engagement does not confer a right to regularization. The legal position in Uma Devi (Supra) is well established: it was aimed at preventing backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutionally mandated processes. However, the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, most notably in Jaggo (Supra) and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India 7has clarified that Uma Devi (Supra) cannot be applied mechanically where (i) there is no illegality in the original engagement, (ii) the engagement was against sanctioned 6 (1992) 4 SCC 118 7 [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 Page 17 of 26 posts, and (iii) the employees have rendered prolonged, continuous and necessary service in performance of functions that are integral to the institution. In such circumstances procedural infirmities or the temporary label cannot be permitted to perpetuate an injustice; the Court must adopt a humane and pragmatic approach to regularization where equity and public interest require it.
20. The decision in Jaggo (Supra) underscores that the nature of the work performed and the factual matrix are decisive: prolonged, continuous and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over time, call for fair regularization. The Supreme Court also drew attention to foreign jurisprudence (for instance Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation8) to stress that the substance of the employer-employee relationship, rather than the nomenclature affixed to it, must determine entitlement to benefits and security. That approach is particularly salient where the State, which is expected to be a model employer, engages persons for work that is perennial in nature but seeks to avoid obligations by classifying them as temporary. 8 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir.1996) Page 18 of 26 The said observations of Supreme Court are reproduced below-
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
21. In the present case, the initial engagements were made against sanctioned posts created by the Finance Page 19 of 26 Department and the selection of the petitioner was through a walk-in interview and a documented process. There is no material on record to suggest that the original engagements were illegal or tainted by malafides. The petitioner has rendered continuous service since 2011 in a capacity that is essential for the day-to-day functioning of the PMU/DPU. The respondents' reliance on the undertaking executed by the petitioner does not, in the circumstances of this case, avail them. It is well recognised that undertakings or contractual clauses executed by persons who have little or no bargaining power cannot be allowed to operate as instruments of injustice. The ratio in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly 9is instructive on the Court's unwillingness to enforce unfair and unconscionable bargains where there exists marked inequality of bargaining power and where the disadvantaged party had no real choice.
22. To hold that mere execution of a standard form undertaking, prior to or at the time of engagement, would conclusively estopp long serving employees from claiming regularization would be to permit the State to defeat the 9 (1986) 3 SCC 156 Page 20 of 26 constitutional guarantee of the right to livelihood under Article 21 by administrative artifice. Between a fundamental right under the Constitution and a contractual clause extracted from an unequal bargaining position, constitutional primacy must prevail.
23. It is also significant that the duties performed by the petitioner have continued to exist; the work has neither ceased nor diminished. Indeed, the same work is reflected in subsequent advertisements for filling the posts on a regular basis. That the regular cadre vacancies remained unfilled while the petitioners continued to perform those functions on a contractual basis indicates an institutional pattern that cannot be permitted to operate to the detriment of those who have served the institution diligently.
24. Having considered the pleadings, the materials on record and the relevant precedents, this Court is of the view that the respondents cannot legitimately rely on the project label or on routine undertakings to deny the petitioners the relief of regularization where (i) sanctioned posts exist, (ii) the engagement was by due process against sanctioned Page 21 of 26 requirements, and (iii) the work performed is continuous, necessary and integral to the functioning of the institution. While the post of Computer Assistant may not be the narrow technical core of OLIC's field operations, it is an essential and recurring administrative/operational function without which the functioning of the project units would be impaired. The legal and equitable considerations therefore tilt in favour of the petitioners.
25. In view of the foregoing, the arguments advanced on behalf of the State and OLIC that the petitioners are estopped by virtue of their undertakings or are deprived of any right to regularization by reason only of the project character of their engagement are not tenable. The petitioners' claim for regularization is founded on continuous and necessary service and on sanctioned institutional need, and is supported by the legal principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above.
26. As regards the relief to be granted, it has been argued by Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the OLIC that the posts against which the petitioners are presently engaged Page 22 of 26 on contractual basis are not available in the regular establishment. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the very fact that the petitioners have been engaged continuously for so long in the core work of OLIC proves that there is work for them.
27. This Court finds that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10276 of 2020 is working as Computer Assistant. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that any such post is available in the regular establishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that corresponding post with the same qualification, namely, Junior Clerk/Jr. Assistant is available against which the petitioner can be adjusted.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10821 of 2020 is engaged as Asst. Manager. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the OLIC has requested for creation of the post of Asst. Manager (MIS) but the same has not yet been created. He further submits that in the fresh advertisement issued, the post of Asst. Manager (MIS) corresponds to the post of Computer Programmer.
Page 23 of 26
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11001 of 2020 is engaged as Manager (Procurement). There is no such post available in the regular establishment.
The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.11004 of 2020 are engaged as Junior Quality Control Engineers. Though there is no such corresponding post in the regular cadre, it is submitted that the said post is equivalent to Junior Engineer (Civil), against which the petitioners can be appointed.
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11007 of 2020 is engaged as Data Entry Operator. As per the affidavit filed by the OLIC, no such post is available in the regular establishment.
28. This Court has already held that the petitioners have been engaged for a long time on contractual basis in different works of OLIC. Considering the sheer length of their engagement, it can be safely held that the works in question are intrinsic to the basic work of OLIC. In other words, it is not a temporary or one-off engagement, whatever may be the nomenclature used by the management. This Court is therefore, inclined to accept the contentions advanced that Page 24 of 26 the engagement of the petitioners cannot continue indefinitely on such ad hoc basis. In other words, the petitioners' engagement has to be secured keeping in line with their fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
29. Having held thus, this Court would hasten to observe that in the absence of specific posts in the regular establishment, no mandamus can be issued to the authorities to straightaway regularise these persons. However, keeping in view the length of their engagement, the nature of work performed and in the backdrop of settled principles of law elaborately discussed in this judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities should undertake an exercise to consider creation of suitable regular posts against which these persons can be engaged depending on their fulfilling the necessary eligibility conditions that may be prescribed. It goes without saying that if such regular posts are created and the petitioners are found to be eligible, they may be considered for engagement against the same by following the norms and by granting relaxation of age wherever necessary.
Page 25 of 26
CONCLUSION
30. The writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the opposite party authorities to consider creation of suitable regular posts appropriate to the work discharged by the petitioners against which they can be engaged subject to the other observations made in the preceding paragraphs. Till such time, these petitioners shall not be disengaged.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 7th November, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 19:48:49 Page 26 of 26