Prasanna Kumar Mishra vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 10 September, 1997
Accordingly, he was
given a detailed matrix of appointed faculty against the
sanctioned post of Professor. While he 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. He further contended
that since the petitioner has already rendered more than
10 years of service, he is entitled to be regularized and
as such, his 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, his services are entitled to be
regularized instead of floating advertisement under
Annexure-16.