Orissa High Court
Idris Ali Khan & Others vs State Of Odisha Opposite Party on 13 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR W.P. (C) No.20965 of 2020
Idris Ali Khan & others .... Petitioners
Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha Opposite Party
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 20967 of 2020
Aurobinda Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha ... Opposite Party
Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA
Ms. B. Dash, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:08.07.2025/17.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025
1.Though separately heard, both the writ petitions are clubbed together since identical question is involved for determination, hence, are disposed of by the following common judgment.
2. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking regularization of their services as Assistant Software Engineers in Home (Election) Department, Government of Odisha in the scale of pay of Rs. 9,300/- to Rs. 34, 800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- w.e.f. 2nd June, 2014 on the date completing six years of Page 1 of 17 service with consequential benefits in view of the resolution dated 15th February, 2014 of the GA Department with such decision within the stipulated period and in the same manner, as has been allowed in respect of contractual IT personnel in various Government Departments and Establishments in terms of Annexure-1 series and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and others Vrs. M.L. Kesari and others (2010)9 SCC 247 besides a decision of this Court dated 7th August, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.17937 of 2020 and further to direct not to dispense with their services till the decision is taken in that regard.
3. As per the pleadings on record, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 20965 of 2020 were selected and employed as the Junior Programmers under a project and their services were extended from time to time till 1st July, 2004 and thereafter, shown to have been engaged under a Chartered Accountant. Such appointments have been in terms of Annexure-1with engagement of the petitioners under Election Photo Identity Card Project. It is further stated that in view of such selection, the petitioners continued in service in the manner allowed and in the meanwhile, on 23rd May, 2008, the Department created six Assistant Software Engineer posts on contractual remuneration of Rs. 12,000/- as per Annexure-2 with the concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha and in that connection, on 28th May, 2008, the Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha published an advertisement in a local Daily Page 2 of 17 'Samaj' and 'New Indian Express' for a walk-in interview to fill up the said posts inviting candidates having MCA qualification with minimum three years of experience in election related IT work under the SLA Project. Upon such advertisement, as per Annexure-3, the selection Committee held interview of 22 candidates including the petitioners on 31st May, 2008 and prepared a select list of six candidates. The proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on the said date is at Annexure-4, as per which, the petitioners found suitable for engagement as Assistant Software Engineers on contractual basis in the order of merit mentioned therein. Later to the above selection, according to the petitioners, all of them joined as Assistant Software Engineers in Home (Election) Department on 2nd June, 2008. It is further pleaded that in the meantime, the Election Commission of India issued policy guidelines as per Annexure-7 for standardization of ERMS and creation of National Data Base of Electoral Roll and schedule for pre- revision activities indicating therein, the State of Odisha to have been placed in the category of 'Large State' with the need and requirement of specified manpower. In the meanwhile, as per the petitioners, the Government of Odisha in GA &PG Department issued resolution dated 15th February, 2014 for regularization of contractual Group-B employees in various Government Departments and offices with a condition that on the date of completion of six years of service or the date of such publication, whichever is later, all such employees shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed. With such resolution as per Annexure-8 of the Government, the contractual services Page 3 of 17 of Group-B employees have been regularized vide Annexure-9 series over a period of time between 2014 and 2018. On the arrival of the above resolution, the petitioners would further plead that a detailed representation for their regularization was submitted but no decision was taken and being aggrieved, all of them approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 2811(C), 2812(C) and 2813(C) of 2016 and before any such reply could be received from the Government, the Tribunal was abolished w.e.f. 2nd August, 2018. It is stated that on 21st December, 2019, the last extension until 22nd November, 2020 was allowed as per Annexure-10 and on 7th July, 2020 before the tenure to expire, the Government issued Covid restrictions for not to renew contractual appointments after such tenure is over and apprehending disengagement, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions demanding regularization of their services in accordance with the Government resolution dated 15th February, 2014 in terms of the decisions of the Apex Court in Uma Devi(3), M.L.Kesari (supra) and in view of the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17937 of 2020 which was disposed of vide Annexure-12 with a direction to consider the same in accordance with Annexure-8. Against the order of this Court dated 28th August, 2020 with a direction to consider regularization of services of the petitioners, W.A. No. 151 of 2021 was filed by the State, which was disposed of on 13th July, 2021 followed by a direction to ensure a decision in the writ petition on merit after being restored to file, whereafter, the counter affidavit was filed by it on 3rd August, 2021.
Page 4 of 174. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 20967 of 2020 is similarly situated and is engaged as an Assistant Software Engineer in the same Department but had initially joined as a Data Entry Operator and attached to the office of the Special Secretary to Govt. of Odisha in GA Department in the year 2003; as a Programmer under GA (Rent) Department between 2004 and 2007; deputed to Health & Family Welfare Department as System Analyst from 2008 to 2011; and finally, in the present post under Home (Election) Department and has been continuing as such and demands regularization in terms of the resolution regard being to the policy guidelines of the ECI.
5. Upon such restoration, after the order in W.A. No. 151 of 2021, the State challenged the appointment of the petitioners and resisted their claim on the premise that the contractual posts held by them have not been created against any sanctioned posts but are purely temporary in nature and such engagement does not lie within the scope and ambit of Annexure-8 and as such, due procedure of selection was not followed nor the reservation policy was adhered to in such selection.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that all of them have rendered more than twenty years of service in the meantime including the period of earlier engagements and in the Department for about seventeen and fourteen years respectively as Assistant Software Engineers, hence, therefore, they are eligible and entitled to be absorbed against regular posts in view of the decision of the Apex Court in M.L.Kesari (supra).
Page 5 of 177. On the other hand, the opposite party State filed the counter affidavit and questioned the claim of the petitioners with the pleading that no such regularization in terms of Annexure-8 is permissible, all the more when, the engagement is contractual and temporary not against any sanctioned posts but with a consolidated remuneration as the Assistant Software Engineers. It is further pleaded that the engagement of the petitioners has not been accomplished by following proper procedure and therefore, it shall have to be characterized as a backdoor entry and hence, in violation of the recruitment rules and as such, there was hardly any occasion to follow the principles of reservation. It is stated therein that such resolution i.e. Annexure-8 of the Government, which is pressed into service by the petitioners, is of no assistance to them as it speaks of regularization of existing contractual employees of Group-B. In fact, referring to the reply affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 20967 of 2020 and the resolution of Group-C & D employees dated 17th September, 2013 as at Annexure-A/1, the regularization of services of the petitioners has been claimed but it is vehemently opposed with a plea that no any contractual posts were created at the time of their engagements with or without abolition of corresponding regular posts following recruitment process prescribed and also the reservation rules as per the ORV Act, 1974. The stand of the Government is that no such regular appointment is permissible in the case of the petitioners, who do not fall within the framework of the resolution i.e. Annexure-8 dated 15th February, 2014. By drawing analogy Page 6 of 17 with resolution dated 17th September, 2013 at Annexure-A/1 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 20967 of 2020, it is pleaded by the State that the petitioners are not eligible and entitled to any such regularization in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) and M.L.Kesari (supra).
8. With the above pleading, the regularization of the petitioners in both the cases has been strongly opposed and objected by the Government. In reply, the petitioners filed rejoinder and reiterated the facts with the claim that they have been appointed on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration and continuing as such, hence, are to be considered as existing contractual employees for the purpose of Annexure-8. It is further pleaded that there has been regularization of services by the orders of this Court at Annexure-13 series and upheld in appeal vide Annexure-14 series and finally by the Apex Court in SLP(C) Nos. 6851, 6868 and 7328 of 2021 at Annexure-15 series and the petitioners since are similarly situated are not to be treated indifferently, hence, their services are to be regularized. It is also pleaded that the appointment of the petitioners has been made by following a selection process with the concurrence of the Finance Department and their services have been extended and all of them continued without unblemished track record and under such circumstances, denying them the regularization would be unjust and unfair.
9. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr. Page 7 of 17 Behera, learned AGA, Mr. Swain, learned AGA and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.
10. In course of hearing, the following decisions, such as,Uma Devi (3) and M.L.Kesari (supra);Jaggo Vrs. Union of India & others 2024 INSC 1034;Shripal & another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 INSC 144;Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India 2024 INSC 332 have been cited from the side of the petitioners. Besides the above, the decisions in State of Odisha Vrs. Laxman Kumar Prusty & others in SLP(C) Nos. 95 of 2019and the judgment of this Court by a Division Bench in State of Odisha and another Vrs. Patitapaban Dutta Dash and others (W.A. No. 777 of 2021) are placed reliance on to contend that such regularization of services of the petitioners is permissible.
11. Admittedly, the petitioners joined in contractual service with tenures extended from time to time. With the initial engagements the petitioners, ultimately, all landed up in Home (Election) Department, Government of Odisha as Assistant Software Engineers on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration of Rs. 12,000/-. Referring to Annexure-7 and the requirement of manpower and the continuous service rendered by the petitioners for well above ten years, the contention of Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for them is that their services deserve to be regularized. It is contended that the petitioners are entitled to such regularization in view of Annexure-8 for their contractual appointment treating the same as being carried out Page 8 of 17 towards strengthening of the existing offices/services and keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra), wherein, it has been held that such long tenure of services rendered by contractual employees should be regularized without demanding compliances vis-a-vis recruitment procedure and reservation rules.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Behera, learned AGA and Mr. Swain, learned AGA assisted by Ms Dash, learned ASC for the State would submit that regularization of services of the petitioners cannot be allowed as it has been temporary engagements extended from time to time and that apart, such appointments have not been followed by a proper recruitment procedure and the reservation rules. Besides that, the contention is that the petitioners do not fall within the purview of Annexure-8, which is applicable to the existing contractual employees appointed against sanctioned posts with or without abolition of the corresponding number of regular posts. Essentially, the stand of the Government is that there can be no regular appointments of the petitioners, who are purely on temporary engagements with consolidated remuneration.
13. In view of the demand for manpower and the requirement of the State as per the policy guidelines of the Election Commission of India released in 2012 by placing Odisha in the category of 'Large State', it is claimed by the petitioners that their regularization should be allowed and that apart, the engagement has not been illegal as is alleged by the Government, rather, by a selection process in respect of the Page 9 of 17 posts receiving sanction of the Finance Department. The contention of Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate and similarly by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decision of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) is applicable to the case at hand, wherein, it has been held that long and uninterrupted service for periods extending well beyond tenures cannot be brushed aside merely by labeling initial appointments as part-time or contractual and that, the essence of any such employment must be considered in the light of sustained contribution, integral nature of work and absence of any evidence to suggest such engagement as illegal or through surreptitious route.
14. In M.L.Kesari (supra) followed in Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar and others (2015) 8 SCC 265; Sheo Narain Nagar & others Vrs. State of U.P. and another AIR 2018 SC 233; and Rajnish Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of U.P. (2019) 17 SCC 648 held and concluded that the essentials for regularization are (a) that the employees worked for ten years or more; (b) they have worked against a duly sanctioned posts without the benefit or protection of interim orders of a Court or Tribunal; and (c) they should have possessed minimum qualification required for the appointment. Subject to the above requirements being satisfied, it is further held therein that even if the appointment process involved is not by an open competitive selection, the same would have to be treated as irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularization. It has also been clarified therein that an employee should have Page 10 of 17 worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post means and to imply that the State Government or its instrumentalities should have engaged any such employee and allowed him to continue in service voluntarily and continuously for more than 10 years.
15. In Jaggo(supra), while dealing with a case of regularization, the Apex Court considering the plea and grounds opposing such regularization with the arguments advanced, discussed in detail, whether, any such contractual appointments are to be followed by regularization on the principles laid down in Uma Devi case and at last, concluded that the appellants therein even though temporary employees but having performed essential task on a daily and continuous basis covering a period ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades and when their engagements not to be sporadic or temporary instead recurrent, regular and akin to the responsibilities of others associated with sanctioned posts and such service found to be indispensable, their demand for regularization merits consideration as the nature of work performed by them was perennial and fundamental to the function of the offices thereby dismissing the plea that such posts held not to be regular. In the said decision, it has also been held that the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) is only to prevent or curtail the practice of back-door entries and primarily to ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles but the same has often been misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees Page 11 of 17 when it was aimed to distinguish illegal and irregular appointments, however, laudable, the real intent of the decision is being subverted by relying on it indiscriminately to reject claims of the employees even in cases where initial appointments are not illegal but merely a result of lack of adherence to procedural formalities.
16. As to the petitioners, a recruitment procedure has been followed in the manner and in terms of Annexure-3 with a walk-in interview and at best, it can be said to be an irregular appointment but not illegal, all the more when, their engagements as Assistant Software Engineer in Home (Election) Department received approval of the Government with the extension of tenure spanning over a period of more than ten to fifteen years. In so far as Annexure-8 is concerned, the same relates to regular appointment of existing contractual employees in the pay scale of Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- with a grade pay of Rs.4,200/- under Group-B, who are not holding any post in contravention of any statutory recruitment rules or executive instructions in absence of such rules. The contention of the State is that the said resolution dated 15 th February, 2014 does not apply to the petitioners. In reply to the above, it is stand of the petitioners that their appointment and regularization is to be considered in the light of Annexure-8 having been inducted for strengthening the existing offices or services of a Government department. It is not in denial that the petitioners joined initially as Junior Programmers/Data Entry Operator and thereafter, as Assistant Software Engineers in 2008/2011 and Page 12 of 17 continuing till now. It has been temporary appointments of the petitioners all through. Admittedly, such engagement of the petitioners is consequent upon a walk-in interview held in terms of Annexure-3. The contention of the petitioners is that the appointments may be considered in view of the resolution at Annexure-8 as it has been in respect of posts created with the sanction of the Finance Department and for strengthening of the existing offices/services, if not in respect of any such posts created on abolition of corresponding regular posts or without such abolition in case of new offices.
17. The question is, whether, having regard to the nature of engagement and services rendered by the petitioners, plea for their regularization is acceptable? Taking into account the decision in Uma Devi and M.L. Kesari (supra), this Court directed regularization of services vide Annexure-13 series. It is also made to understand that such decisions have been upheld vide Annexure-14 series and ultimately by the Apex Court in the SLPs. In fact, the copies of the orders at Annexure-15 series reveal that the SLPs were dismissed. Upon a reading of Annexures-13 and 14 series, the Court finds that such regularization of the contractual appointments has been allowed upon completion of six years of the service rendered and it was by considering the above decisions of the Apex Court. In one of such cases in W.A. No.822 of 2020, this Court confirmed the order in W.P.(C) No. 22112 of 2020 in respect of engagement of Junior Data Entry Operators on contractual basis upholding their regularization regard being had to the resolution at Page 13 of 17 Annexure-8. Admittedly, the resolution is applicable in respect of appointments made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of the Finance Department either with or without abolition of corresponding regular posts or for strengthening of the existing offices/services but with a rider that the recruitment procedure has been duly followed with the principles of reservation applied.
18. Furthermore, when there is a need of manpower and policy guidelines have been issued by the Election Commission of India, whether, any such appointments of the petitioners to be considered for regularization? It is argued at the Bar that such regularization is to be allowed since the initial appointments received the concurrence of the Finance Department and it was for strengthening the services in the matters relating to election managed by the Department. It is admitted that regular recruitment procedure has not been followed but by means of a walk-in interview, the petitioners have been engaged and their services have been extended regularly. For such engagement, there was no any scope for applying the reservation rules. In such a situation, whether, the regularization of the petitioners may be considered in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra).In fact, in the above decision, the Apex Court considered different aspects of a temporary engagement in Government establishments and expressed concern for the multifaceted forms of exploitation and taking into account the misuse of temporary labels, arbitrary termination, lack of career progression, using outsourcing as a seal; and denial of basic Page 14 of 17 rights and benefits often applying the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) and finally held and concluded that continuous and uninterrupted long tenure of services should be regularized.
19. The petitioners have been in service ever since 2008 engaged as Assistant Engineers in Home (Election) Department on consolidation remuneration. It is not in dispute that the recruitment has not been by following the normal course as usually adopted against and in respect regular posts. It is also not against any regular posts that the petitioners have been accommodated contractually. But, the services rendered by the petitioners though, under a project claimed to be recurrent and perennial, the fact which has not been disputed either. It is of course not revealed from the record or demonstrated, whether, the nature of employment of the petitioners is alike the regular posts under Group-B. The petitioners demand that their regularization should be in respect of such posts in terms of Annexure-8 with a scale of pay of Rs.9,300/- to Rs. 34,800/-. Taking stock of the entire situation, such regularization of services of the petitioners should be thought of by the Govt. in the lines of the Apex Court's decision in Jaggo (supra).The Court is of the humble view that the petitioners regularization may be considered against such posts befitting the responsibilities assigned to them. Such is the suggestion for regularization considering the fact that the petitioners' services are ever since 2008/2011 and it has been continuous and their recruitment is not per se illegal in a way the engagement received approval of the Govt. and though, there was no any Page 15 of 17 scope to apply the reservation rules. It is not that the recruitment has been held illegally. In fact, the Finance Department concurred the engagement of the petitioners in Home (Election) Department to deal with such matters related to election. At best, it may be branded as irregular recruitment of the petitioners and not illegal. Having regard to the employment of the petitioners for so long by this time, all of them must have been overaged, hence, according to the Court, equity and fairness demands that regularization of their services should be considered instead of opposing on any such grounds for them having not been selected through a regular recruitment conducted following the reservation rules. By now, the petitioners having years of service experience having possessed the requisite educational qualification essential to perform the sanctioned functions in the Department deserve to be considered for regularization. The Court is inclined and in favour of such regularization having regard to the fact that the service spanning well over a decade and even more and when the duties are not alleged to be sporadic, rather, permanent and integral to the functioning of the Department concerned, which works throughout year. In Jaggo (supra), the Apex Court considering the appellants therein having long and service without break and integral nature of the work assigned in absence of any evidence to suggest that entries have been illegal directed regularization of their service. Of course, in the case at hand, the petitioners employment has been project based but it is continuous and perennial and has been for about fourteen to seventeen years by now and in view of the fact that there is a Page 16 of 17 need of manpower in view of the policy guidelines of the Election Commission of India, it would be just and proper if their regularization is considered keeping in view Annexure-7 appropriately placing them in such posts befitting their qualification and experience. Though, the regularization is strongly opposed in view of the conditions laid down in Annexure-8 and it relates to regular appointments in respect of Group-B employees contrary to the nature of engagement of the petitioners but having regard to the fact that their service is continuous and for so many years, it should be considered. In other words, the Court is of the view that regularization of services of the petitioners should be considered in such posts suitable to their qualification with corresponding duties and responsibilities attributable to ensure proper functioning of the Department and accordingly, it is ordered.
20. In the result, the writ petitions stand disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by the opposite party State keeping in view Annexure-7 exclusively to cater the demand and needs of the Home (Election) Department, Govt. of Odisha regard being had to Annexures-13, 14 and 15 by undertaking such exercise necessary and expedient concluding the same at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(R.K.Pattanaik) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack kabita Date: 16-Oct-2025 12:51:59 Page 17 of 17