Orissa High Court
Sandeep Ranjan Mishra vs Sstate Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 21 May, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14289 of 2019
Sandeep Ranjan Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. Budhadeb Routray, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
SState of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Satyabrata Panda, ASC
W.P.(C) No.14290 of 2019
Rudra Narayan Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Budhadeb Routray, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
SState of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Satyabrata Panda, ASC
And
W.P.(C) No.14292 of 2019
Nirupama Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. Budhadeb Routray, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
SState of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Satyabrata Panda, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING: 13.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:21.05.2026
1.All the writ petitions have been clubbed together and disposed of by the following common judgment.
Page 1 of 242. Instant writ petitions are filed by the petitioners for quashing of the advertisement issued by opposite party No.4 vide Annexures-9 and 10 and to direct opposite party No.1 to take a decision in terms of Annexure-8 of the State Wild Life Board so far as it relates to continuance of their services in respect of the posts as recommended by opposite party No.4 vide Annexures-6 and 7 and to release their remuneration for the alleged period and furthermore, for a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.1 to regularize such services rendered by them having been appointed against sanctioned posts of Research Fellows extending the consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible to them within a stipulated period of time on the grounds stated.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts relevant to the case are described herein below. It is pleaded on record that the petitioners continuing as Research Fellows after the due process of selection pursuant to an advertisement issued by opposite party No.4 have completed more than 10 years of service and it has been found satisfactory by the authorities concerned, hence, are entitled to regularization to the posts held by them but instead, an advertisement was published by opposite party No.4 to fill up such posts again. It is further pleaded that the petitioners do have requisite qualification and having been so appointed under the Elephant Management Action Plan are eligible for regularization since such engagement has been made as per Page 2 of 24 the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (shortly as 'the Act') as amended from time to time.
3.1. As further pleaded, in accordance with the Act, it was decided by the opposite parties for engagement of Research Personnel under Elephant Management Action Plan of the Forest and Environment Department and accordingly, an advertisement was floated in a daily newspaper on 12th July, 2009 for selection and engagement of one post of Research Fellow each under the office of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests/Conservator of Forests of Angul, Baripada, Berhampur, Bhawanipatna, Bhubaneswar, Koraput, Rourkela and Sambalpur. As per the advertisement, the qualification for the said post was that the candidates must have completed a Masters' Degree in Wildlife Biology, Zoology/Life Science with at least 55% marks with desirable experience and preferences stipulated therein. A copy of the said advertisement is at Annexure-1. The petitioners, having the requisite qualification, both essential and desirable, appeared in the interview conducted by a Selection Committee held on 21st July, 2019, whereafter, all of them joined as Research Fellows. The order of appointments is at Annexure-2. The petitioners after having joined in the posts continued discharging their duties to the best of the satisfaction of all concerned and pleaded further that in accordance with the Act, the State Board for Wild Life was notified for a period of three years and continued to be constituted by the State Government under Section 6 thereof and Board being the authority and Page 3 of 24 satisfied with their performance extended the services of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the remuneration was also enhanced vide Annexure-3 from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-with effect from January, 2014; further to Rs.15,000/- from February, 2016 and then increased to Rs.28,000/-. It is pleaded that opposite party No.4 extended the services of the petitioners for a further period of one year i.e. till March, 2019 and while matter stood thus, a request was made to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Forest and Environment Department for extension of their contractual services up to March, 2020 followed by a reminder dated 16th March, 2019 stating therein that the remuneration of the Research Fellows shall be met from the existing Budget Head from which they were being paid vide Annexures-6 and 7 respectively.
3.2. The petitioners having been appointed and their services being essential in terms of the Act and the State constituted a Board in accordance with Section 6 of the Act and as it had already taken a decision in a meeting held on 6th January, 2011 under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Odisha to the effect that the research activities would be strengthened in Wildlife Organization, the Board submitted the recommendation to the Government for creation of posts and regularization of services vide Annexure-8 but for reasons best known to opposite party No.1, no decision was taken in that regard.
4. The petitioners plead that they were continuing for about 10 years and when the Board had also taken a decision and Page 4 of 24 its Member Secretary moved the State Government for regularization of their services and the letter of correspondence i.e. Annexure-6 reveals that it made the recommendation on the ground that research in Wildlife Organization is a continuing and long-term process for better management of wildlife and its habitat, surprisingly, instead of any such regularization with creation of posts, the Government came out with the advertisement on 3rd July, 2019 inviting applications for the posts of Junior Research Fellows (JRF), GIS Analyst and Data Analyst (Computer Programmer) on contractual basis with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.28,000/- per month under Elephant Management Action Plan of Forest and Environment Department, when the said posts are held by them for almost 10 years. A copy of the impugned advertisement is at Annexure-9 and the State Wildlife HQs issued the details of the advertisement on its official website dated 2nd July, 2019 i.e. Annexure-10 and it is further pleaded that the description of the posts, the educational qualification prescribed therein with job requirements are almost same to that of the petitioners engaged on contractual basis working satisfactorily for more than 10 years. The contention is that creation of posts and decision on the same is pending with the State Government as on today and so the regularization of services of the petitioners but by virtue of the advertisement i.e. Annexure-9 read with Annexure-10, their services were dispensed with. Notwithstanding the recommendation of opposite party No.4 for regularization, notices have been issued to replace the petitioners by others Page 5 of 24 again on contractual terms which is unjustified, inasmuch as, one set of contractual employees cannot be substituted by another when their work and performance are found to be satisfactory and continuance of services is necessary under the project for which they have been picked up followed by the recommendation of the Board.
5. The claim of the petitioners is that the engagement no doubt is under a Scheme but it has been approved by the Board created under Section 6 of the Act and when they were found eligible and considered for regularization and accordingly recommendation was made to the Government, any such advertisement vide Annexure-9 to replace them is illegal whereby their career and future prospects would be jeopardized especially when they have become overaged for any engagement in future. It is reiterated that the management of elephant corridor is an ongoing scheme conceptualized as per the provisions of the Act and the petitioners have been engaged thereunder and worked for about 10 years and their performances was never found to be unsatisfactory, any decision with the advertisement vide Annexure-9 to substitute them by contractual employees is highly unjust and hence, the steps taken by opposite party No.4 pursuant to such advertisement is liable to be quashed.
6. Perused the counter affidavits filed by the State. According to the opposite parties, the petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 3rd July, 2019 issued by opposite party No.4 under Annexures-9 and 10 and it was for engagement of Research Fellows under the Elephant Page 6 of 24 Management Action Plan at Regional Circle Offices and they joined in contractual service terminable at any time without assigning any reason and furthermore when the offer letters stipulated that it would not entitle them to demand any claim for Government jobs. It is also pleaded that initially the engagement was for a year and extended from time to time but the engagement of the petitioners is based on management needs and has nothing to do with the provisions of the Act.
6.1. With the last extension allowed in favour of the petitioners that automatically ceased with effect from 1 st April, 2019 and after their disengagement and in view of the letter of the Government vide Annexure-D/4 dated 16th May, 2019, opposite party No.4 published the advertisement vide Annexure-9 for engagement of personnel under the Elephant Management Act Plan. In so far as the Board constituted under the Act is concerned, it is an authority having the duty to advise the State Government and as such does not discharge the duties which are administrative in nature and hence, there is no question of judging the performance of the petitioners and extending their services is beyond its purview in view of Section 8 thereof.
6.2. The engagement of Research Fellows was as per the requirements and on temporary basis and therefore, the claim of the petitioners is that they have been appointed against the statutory needs of the State and as per the Act is misconceived, however, admitting the fact that the State Wildlife Board had advised the Government to examine Page 7 of 24 regularization of 11 Research Fellows recruited, but no instruction was received from the Government nor any such posts were created. As to the decision of the Board, it is pleaded that Government was moved by opposite party No.4 for creation of suitable posts and such proposal was endorsed to the Finance Department by Forest and Environment Department for their concurrence, but it was communicated to take necessary follow up action with an observation that Junior Research Fellows should not continue for more than 5 years and therefore, the Department should select new JRFs in their place as per the decision taken in a meeting held on 22nd November, 2017 under the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department and on receipt of above communication vide Annexure-D/4, process was initiated at the behest of opposite party No.4 and accordingly, the advertisement was published vide Annexures-9 and 10. That apart, the petitioners were all along aware of the conditions of their services according to the offer letters i.e. Annexure-2, but continued in their respective posts under opposite party No.5 accepting the extensions allowed from time to time and therefore, any such claim for a Government job with regularization is not at all entertainable.
6.3. The Scheme has been formulated to manage the elephant corridor in the State and may be withdrawn or modified or replaced at any time, if situations demand and therefore, when the petitioners were engaged thereunder and their services stand ceased with effect from 1st April, 2019 Page 8 of 24 and remuneration has been paid up to 31st March, 2019 which are not denied either, there is no question of any further remuneration beyond March, 2019.
7. Heard Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State.
8. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners would submit that by the year 2019, the petitioners had already completed 10 years of service and their continuation was with due concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha but instead of considering regularization, it has been followed by the advertisement vide Annexures-9 and 10. The contention is that the petitioners, the writ petitions were dismissed by a common judgment dated 25th June, 2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.13439, 13626, 14050, 14289, 14290 and 14292 of 2019 and it was challenged in W.A. Nos.2268, 2269 and 2270 of 2024 respectively which were allowed with the matters remitted back for disposal in terms of the directions issued therein and after such remand, amendment to the writ petitions was allowed by order dated 9th December, 2025 incorporating therein the relief towards regularization of their services. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the petitioners having the requisites qualification and satisfied the eligibility criteria in terms of the advertisement for the posts of Research Fellow and after a recruitment process held and concluded offered with the engagement orders dated 17th August, 2009 and the State Board for Wildlife in the year 2011 made a recommendation for Page 9 of 24 regularization of eleven Research Fellows in Wildlife Organization with a detailed proposal submitted with the financial implication sent by the Principal Chief Conservation of Forest(WL) and Chief Wild Life Warden, Odisha to the Government in Forest and Environment Department under Annexure-13 followed by Annexure-14 communicated by the Government about concurrence of the Finance Department dated 5th July, 2013 regarding post facto approval of the same with enhancement of monthly remuneration for the said posts from Rs.10,000/-to Rs.12,000/-, whereafter, their engagements were extended considering satisfactory performances. Similar request was made for extension up to March, 2020 but it was not heeded. When the petitioners had already completed 10 years of service as Research Fellows and the posts were created with concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, instead of their continuance and regularization, it was followed by the advertisement which was subsequently withdrawn, but no steps were taken for regularization of services, even though, the nature of work executed by the Research Fellows is perennial and still required by the organization considering the fact that the petitioners entered into service having the required qualification and selection by an advertisement with a fair and transparent method of selection. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate would lastly submit that after extracting work from them and utilizing services for about 10 years, the action of opposite parties in not regularizing their services is not only illegal but also arbitrary and it amounts to sheer exploitation and is Page 10 of 24 contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court and in support of such contention, the following citations, namely, State of Odisha and another Vrs. Ranjan Kumar Rout (W.A. No.1222 of 2025 dated 21.01.2026); Manas Ranjan Samal and others Vrs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C)No.7661 of 2020 dated 24th October.2025 and batch cases; Dharam Singh and others Vrs. State of UP and another 2025 INSC 998; Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and others AIR 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal and another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025) 1 SCR 1427 have been referred to and relied on.
9. On the contrary, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State submits that the engagement of the petitioners was on temporary basis and in terms of the offer letters. The further contention is that the engagement of the petitioners has been under a scheme renewed from time to time, but without claiming regularization of service. It is contended that no doubt opposite party No.1 directed opposite party No.4 for enhancement of monthly remuneration of Research Fellow of Wild Life Organization vide Annexure-B/4, but indicating therein the fact that Junior Research Fellows were continuing for a longer period of time and it should not be allowed for more than 5 years and suggested that the Administrative Department can proceed to fill up the posts, for which they may submit the proposal to the Finance Department. The further contention is that upon receiving the instructions as above, the service of the petitioners stood Page 11 of 24 discontinued with effect from 31st March, 2019. When the initial engagement is under a scheme formulated by the State Government, according to Mr. Panda, learned ASC, the petitioners' services ceased to exist after a decision of the Government vide Annexure-B/4 that such continuance should not be for more than 5 years and for that, new JRFs are to be selected.
10. Perused the rejoinder affidavits filed by the petitioners. It is reiterated therein that the petitioners continued in service having joined as Research Fellows since 17 th August, 2009 without any break and the last extension was till March, 2019 and by that time, they were going to complete 10 years of continuous service, however, with a malafide intention and to ensure that they do not get the benefit of regularization, the advertisement as per Annexures-9 and 10 was issued. That apart, the recommendation was made by the Forest Department for creation of 11 posts of Research Fellows and the Finance Department enhanced the remuneration from time to time and the extensions suggest that it has been done in accordance with the Scheme, but for reasons known to the Government while enhancing the consolidated remuneration, observed that Research Fellows should not continue for more than 5 years leaving it open for the Administrative Department to proceed to fill up the existing posts with a proposal submitted in that regard and any such suggestion is grossly inappropriate. It is also pleaded that opposite party No.4 has suggested to fill up the base level Page 12 of 24 posts of Research Officers under the Wildlife Organization and it was for either upgradation/regularization of the posts of the petitioners as Research Officers but since the Finance Department, Government of Odisha suggested filling up the posts of Junior Research Fellows to which they had never been applied/selected, hence, non-extension of the services of the petitioners in the posts of Research Fellow is illegal and bad in law. It is also pleaded that the State Government in GA Department Resolution dated 15th February, 2014 decided in principles for regular appointment of existing contractual employees who are not holding any posts in contravention of statutory rules or executive instructions in absence of any such rules and it was on the premise that persons having satisfactory completion of 6 years of contractual service from the date of publication of resolution or initial appointment whichever is later shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed and therefore, the petitioners are also eligible for regularization in terms thereof but despite having being in service beyond 6 years and when all of them were about to complete 10 years of service, the advertisement was published, but once again to fill up the contractual posts, all the more when, they continued to serve the organization uninterruptedly and satisfactorily, but abruptly made to cease on 1st April, 2019. Lastly, it is pleaded that the petitioners are deemed to treated as regular employees in the Scale of Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-with effect from August, 2015 and are entitled to the salary in view of the GA Department's resolution in 2014. Referring to the decision in Secretary, Page 13 of 24 State of Karnataka & others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, later followed in State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari and others AIR 2010 SC 2585, it is claimed that the services of the petitioners are directed to be regularized for having completed six years by 2015 but the advertisement vide Annexure-9 was published simply to deny them such regularization.
11. The undisputed facts are as follows. The services of the petitioners were extended from time to time till 2019. The engagement was in connection with wildlife Protection and conservation in the State under the Elephant Management Action Plan. The petitioners joined as Research Fellows after having appeared in a walk-in-interview fulfilling the criteria and qualification needed for the job. The Government, with the concurrence of Finance Department, allowed extension of contractual engagement of the petitioners as Research Fellows up to 31st March, 2019. The tenure of petitioners came to an end as per the last extension. Admittedly, opposite party No.4 had requested the Government for further extension up to March, 2020.
12.The question is, whether, under the above circumstances, the petitioners could have claimed an extension and also regularization as against the posts of Research Fellows in view of the recommendation of the State Wild Life Board? The contention of Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate is that due concurrence was received from Finance Department towards extension and upon completion of 6 Page 14 of 24 years and allowing the petitioners to continue for nearly 10 years should have been followed by regularization of their services, but instead the advertisement as per Annexure-9 was floated but it was subsequently withdrawn. Even though, the services said to have been ceased with effect from 31st March, 2019, Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate would contend that petitioners are eligible and entitled to regularization as against the posts after being created. Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State on the contrary contend that the very nature of engagement of the petitioners is on contractual terms and therefore, they cannot claim regularization and rightly, therefore, the tenure was determined with effect from 31st March, 2019 upon receiving the communication from the Government.
13. This Court in Ranjan Kumar Rout (supra) held and concluded that mere absence of a sanctioned post by itself cannot determine in a case where the State has consciously allowed the extension for a long period extracting regular service without introduction and intervention by a judicial order and affirmed the view of the Single Bench being in consonance with the principles enunciated in Jaggo (supra), wherein it has been observed that the State cannot be permitted to perpetuate indefinite temporariness and thereafter deny regularization on the plea of initial irregularity in the appointment or absence of sanctioned posts for that matter. It is also concluded that the direction issued by a Single Bench does not amount to creation of posts nor do they confer regularization automatically dehors Page 15 of 24 the rules, rather founded on the obligation of the State to act fairly and non-arbitrarily in the matters of public employment particularly where its own conduct as a result renders long and continuance service brought to an end and therefore any such decision does not transgress the limitation but falls within the exception carved out where equitable relief has been upheld in cases of prolonged engagement by the employer.
14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Manas Ranjan Samal (supra) referring to the decisions in Jaggo and Shripal of the Apex Court concluded that the initial engagements of the petitioners therein were not illegal, on the contrary, the engagements were for the posts sanctioned by the Finance Department and on the basis of performances in a walk-in-interview and therefore, their services deserve regularization. In the above decision, it has also been concluded that though the engagement was for a project period only and that the petitioners are bound by the undertaking submitted and not to claim regularization in future, it cannot be gainsaid that the nature of work was not something beyond the regular work of the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited as the engagements have been for the posts of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) and that apart, the contractual term stood renewed every year implying availability/continuity of work and that it is not as if a work of a one-time job undertaken for a specific period and therefore, notwithstanding the nomenclature used, since the work is perennial and inherent to the regular work of the Page 16 of 24 Corporation and the petitioners having tendered the work as regular employees so called decision to engage persons under the Scheme on outsource is nothing but subterfuge intended to disown the responsibility of adding them all to the regular establishment.
15. At this juncture, the Court is inclined to reproduce the relevant extract of the decision in Jaggo (supra) which is hereinbelow.
"24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.Page 17 of 24
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 Page 18 of 24 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."
16. In the aforesaid decision referring to the Umadevi case, it was held as such and in following words:
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the Page 19 of 24 judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."
17. The decision in Jaggo case is reiterated by the Apex Court in Shripal (supra).
18. In the case at hand, the petitioners joined as Research Fellows and of course in respect of an action plan for protection of elephant corridor. It is also revealed from the record that a walk-in-interview was held inviting applications from the prospective candidates and therein, the petitioners came out successful and joined as Research Fellows obviously having the requisite qualification. Such engagement of the petitioners is again with the concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha. The record reveals that upon such engagement in 2009, extensions were allowed till 31st March, 2019. The objection of the State is that no posts were created and it was a temporary engagement of the petitioners and hence, it was brought to an end in 2019. It is contended that the petitioners' services were terminable without any reason assigned. Since such an undertaking was submitted by the petitioners, it is the stand of the opposite parties that they cannot turn around and demand continuation and regularization of their services even though any such proposal was received from the State Wildlife Board. Irrespective of any such conditions stipulated in the offer Page 20 of 24 letters, according to the Court, what is material is with regard to the nature of appointment and obviously it is contractual but after a selection process was held and all of them qualified to join as Research Fellows. Too much of emphasis need not be given to any such stipulation in the appointment letters or undertakings furnished by the petitioners as in each and every such engagement, a condition is put in place indicating therein that the same is terminable at any time without assigning reasons therefor. The Court is more concerned for the continuous services rendered by the petitioners and the same having been allowed by the Government may be under a Scheme. It is nowhere pleaded that the nature of work as Research Fellows has ceased to exist. Rather, the Government was inclined to freshly recruit by an advertisement vide Annexure-9 which was certainly to replace the petitioners and it was in respect of the self-same job with no difference. It is not revealed from the record as to what was the rationality that influenced the decision of the Government to conclude that the Research Fellows should not be allowed to remain in service for more than 5 years and why not earlier. In the case of the petitioners nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court that their performances were not satisfactory. It is rather pleaded that no such assessment was needed vis-à-vis performances and amenable considering the fact that the petitioners were just Research Fellows engaged under a Scheme. But again, the question is why one set of Research Fellows were to be replaced by such an advertisement and selection, of course, later withdrawn?
Page 21 of 24Under the above circumstances when advertisement followed, a question would certainly arise as to what was the need for the Government to disengage the petitioners as Research Fellows when they were allowed to continue and serve the organization for almost 10 years? The initial engagement of the petitioners that apart cannot be questioned as it was followed by a due process of selection by a Committee constituted by the competent authority. It cannot be branded as illegal appointment and when such decision of the State Board of Wildlife, Odisha received post facto approval by the Finance Department. It is of course not by means of a routine recruitment process, only by a walk-in interview, but one cannot claim the appointment of the petitioners to be illegal. The facts remains whether the petitioners can be allowed to continue on contractual basis and accommodated against any such posts of Research Fellows after it is created? It is made to understand that no such posts were created until 2019 and by then, the recommendation vis-à-vis regularization of the petitioners was pending with the Government for decision. It is claimed that the extension allowed with the concurrence of the Finance Department from time to time would suggest that it was with a purpose towards regularization. But the Court is inclined to hold that no such assumption is to be attributed to the extensions allowed when it is permissible. In so far as any such regularization being a contractual employee in terms of the resolutions of the GA Department, Government of Odisha, it has to be held that the same shall have to be in terms thereof. It could be said that someone Page 22 of 24 worked in an organization for nearly 10 years as Research Fellows may be in expectation of regularization even though he is well aware of terms and conditions of contractual service. Any such continuation of service for a longer period of time and thereafter, disengagement has been considered to be unjust and arbitrary by the Apex Court in Jaggo and Shripal (supra)
19. In Dharam Singh and others Vrs. State of U.P. and another (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018), the Apex Court issued clarification with regard to the decision in Umadevi (supra) and therein, it has been observed that unlike Umadevi case, the challenge is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment, rather, it is to the State's arbitrary refusal to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need indicates of continuance and reliance on the work force. It is also concluded therein that Umadevi case draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment and lastly, observed that in view of the decisions in Jaggo and Shripal, it is emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (3) (supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ad hocism.
20. Having considered the case laws cited and discussed as above and when there has been a continuous service rendered by the petitioners joined as Research Fellows having participated in a recruitment process which is not termed to be illegal as it was backed by the concurrence of Page 23 of 24 the Finance Department, Government of Odisha and all of them were allowed to serve in the Organization for close to 10 years and when State Wildlife Board submitted proposal seeking regularization of their services with the posts being created, in absence of any rationality in the decision of the Government to invite fresh applications to fill up the posts for the same nature of job and though it was withdrawn at a later point of time, this Court is of the humble view that such a suggestion towards creation of posts should have been sincerely thought of taking into account all such aspects when the nature of job is not temporary at least in the near future and regard being had to the fact that the entire exercise by the Government is to ensure a better management of wildlife habitat in the State which is essential for proper implementation of the conservation and management measures.
21. Hence, it is ordered.
22. In the result, the writ petitions stand disposed with a direction to the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.1 to consider and examine the proposal received from the State Wildlife Board towards creation of posts and recommendation of the State Wildlife Board on regularization of services of the petitioners as Research Fellows in the light of the discussions held herein above followed by a decision preferably within a period of eight Signature Not Verified weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: AuthenticationLocation: OHC,CTC (R.K. Pattanaik)
Date: 25-May-2026 16:56:34
Judge Tudu
Page 24 of 24