Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. In the present case, as per the appointment letter issued to the appellants, they were appointed for a maximum period of one year and the same was renewed by the Government from time to time till 31.05.2020 on some pretext or other especially due to protracted litigation. In fact, after the end of the drawn out litigation, the O.P.S.C. could finally complete the selection process for regular appointment of Lecturers in the year 2017-18. Consequently, 272 Lecturers were appointed in different Colleges on regular basis. Subsequently, in 2018, another batch of 135 Lecturers were also appointed on regular basis after getting selected by O.P.S.C. through a rigorous method of selection. In the meantime, these newly appointed batches of regular Lecturers have also completed their two years' probation in 2019-20. Many of the ad hoc Lecturers including the present appellants of the instant batch of Writ Appeals also applied for recruitment tests for selection of Lecturers (both in College and Junior Colleges) for regular posts which were conducted by the O.P.S.C. but were unsuccessful in the same. After successful induction of 407 number of regular Lecturers on probation, the Department of Higher Education, Government of Odisha took a decision vide Office Order No.21308 dated 14.10.2019 with a direction to renew the ad hoc appointment of the said ad hoc Lecturers up to 31.5.2020 as the last renewal and categorically stipulated that their service shall stand terminated automatically on 31.5.2020.

"The posting is purely temporary and the candidates cannot claim their right to continue in the post on the basis of such appointment. The tenure will only be for a period of one-year w.e.f. the date of joining in the post or the recommendation of OPSC for the regular appointment is made in the said post, whichever is earlier."

58. The appellants, it was submitted, were fully aware of the fact that the vacancies advertised for ad hoc appointment of Lecturers was purely a stop gap arrangement, which would remain valid only till the time OPSC completed the regular recruitment process. In 2017, following the judgment of this Court in the case of Snigdha Panigrahi & Others v. State of Orissa & Others13, the OPSC completed the selection process under Advertisement No.5 of 2013 read with corrigendum dated 16.01.2014 and 272 posts of Lecturers were filled up. Since 272 posts out of 352 posts of Lecturers, which were the subject matter of ad hoc appointments were filled up by the OPSC by way of regular recruitment in terms of Clause-7 of the ad hoc Advertisement of 2013. In view of that the same period of ad hoc appointment of Lecturers is no longer necessary to be extended. With this backdrop, a decision was taken by the State Government that no further extension of appointment of ad hoc Lecturers ought to be made. He further contended that the above decision of the State Government was assailed by the present appellants before the learned Single Judge on the plea that they were entitled to regularisation taking into account the six years' service rendered by them as ad hoc Lecturers. Learned Single Judge finding no merit in the contentions of the appellants, dismissed the Writ Application. Hence, the present Writ Appeal has been filed with the contention that the appellants are entitled to regularization since they have been validly appointed in accordance with the existing law. The appellants have heavily relied upon the following decisions:

engagement or making them permanent."

76. It must be noted at this juncture that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aforesaid case was presented with the contention that in earlier case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka21 similarly placed temporary and contractual (1990) 2 SCC 396 employees had been directed to be regularised and therefore a similar approach must be taken for the remaining employees belonging to the State of Karnataka. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not appreciate this argument, but held that the acceptance of such an argument would mean that the appointments made otherwise than by a regular process of selection would become the order of the day completely jettisoning the constitutional scheme of appointment. It also had that merely because a certain section of persons had been given a benefit does not mean that the Court could not correct/remedy the error later on and should instead chose to perpetuate such an illegality.