Prasanna Kumar Mishra vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 10 September, 1997
Accordingly, she was given a detailed matrix of
appointed faculty against the sanctioned post of
Professor. While she was so continuing, an
advertisement was issued to fill up the posts on regular
basis in different disciplines and the petitioner along
with others challenged the same before this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016 and this Court vide
order dated 16.11.2016 passed interim order directing
that the services of the petitioner along with others shall
not be dispensed with without leave of the Court and as
such, by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is
continuing till date. It is further contended that since the
petitioner has already rendered more than 10 years of
service, she is entitled to be regularized and as such, her
services have been protected by the interim order
passed by this Court. It is further contended that similar
question had come up for consideration before this
Court in W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005 (Dr. Prasana
Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, disposed of on
5
01.12.2015), wherein this Court directed the opposite
party-University to extend all consequential benefits as
due and admissible to him in accordance with law
within a period of four months. Against the said order,
BPUT filed SLP (C) No.4945 of 2020, which was
dismissed on 07.08.2020. Thereby, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that since the petitioner stands
on the same footing, her services are entitled to be
regularized instead of floating advertisement under
Annexure-16 dated 2012.2021.