Orissa High Court
Mrunalini Mallick vs State Of Odisha And Others …. Opposite … on 5 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). Nos. 18708, 23381, 18777,18902 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) In W.P.(C).No. 18708 of 2024 Mrunalini Mallick ...... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties In W.P.(C).No. 23381 of 2024 Sandhyarani Das ...... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties In W.P.(C).No. 18777 of 2024 --------------- Ullash Chandra Mallik ...... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties In W.P.(C).No. 18902 of 2024 Suchitra Mallick ...... Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties Page 1 of 8 _____________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. S.Nath, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate for the State. _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT
05.04.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
All these writ applications involve identical facts
and being together, are disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. All these petitioners had applied for engagement as
Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak (SSS) pursuant to
advertisement issued on 25.03.2003. Their names did
not figure in the merit list published on 31.07.2003 and
13.08.2003 for which they could not be engaged.
2.1 On 26.09.2003, as per instructions issued by the
Secretary to Government in the Department of School
and Mass Education, the District Collectors, prepared
Page 2 of 8
list of eligible candidates for recruitment of 15682 SSS,
out of the pending applications received pursuant to the
advertisement dated 25.03.2003. The petitioners’ names
found place in the merit list and accordingly, they were
selected. Subsequently, engagement orders being
issued, all of them joined as Sikhya Sahayaks (SS) in
different schools.
2.2 The decision of the Government taken on
26.09.2003 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).
No. 11748 of 2003 (Hrushikesh Bindhani and others
Vrs. State of Odisha). This Court, by order dated
29.04.2004 quashed the order dated 26.09.2003 by
holding that engagement of SSS without advertisement
was null and void and further direction was issued to
make fresh advertisement. Accordingly, the Government
took steps for disengagement of the petitioners and
other similarly placed persons.
2.3 The petitioners approached this Court in writ
applications as also before the erstwhile Odisha
Administrative Tribunal and were protected by interim
orders. As such, they have continued till date. In the
Page 3 of 8
meantime, the judgment of this Court in Hrushikesh
Bindhani (supra) was confirmed by the Supreme Court
by order dated 16.08.2013 in SLP(C) No. 4741 of 2007.
2.4 The petitioners submitted representations
ventilating their grievance before the Secretary,
Department of School and Mass Education. The original
applications filed by the petitioners being subsequently
transferred to this Court were disposed of with direction
to the Secretary of the Department to consider their
representations.
2.5 By order dated 04.07.2024, the Secretary, after
taking note of all the relevant facts rejected the
representations on the ground that engagement of the
petitioners being after 26.09.2003 has already been
declared null and void by this Court in Hrushikesh
Bindhani (supra) as well as Sushil Mohapatra v. State
of Odisha and Others (W.P(C). No. 1751 of 2012).
2.6 Being aggrieved the petitioners have filed these writ
applications basically with prayer to direct the Opposite
Party authorities to regularize their services.
Page 4 of 8
3. The stand of the State is that the petitioners
admittedly having been appointed in the second phase
selection pursuant to order dated 26.09.2003 of the
Government cannot be said to have accrued any right as
such engagement was held null and void by this Court
in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra). Further, in case of
Sushil Mohapatra (supra), the same principle was
reiterated. As regards the claim of the petitioners of
having rendered service for more than 20 years. It is
stated that the same being on the strength of interim
orders passed by this Court as well as the erstwhile
Odisha Administrative Tribunal cannot enure to their
benefit.
4. Heard Mr. S.K.Nath, learned counsel appearing for all
the petitioners and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for
the State.
5. Undisputedly, the petitioners could not come out
successful in the selection held pursuant to the
advertisement dated 25.03.2003. They were selected in
the second phase on the basis of the order dated
26.09.2003. Said order was quashed by this Court in
Page 5 of 8
Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) and the engagements
made in pursuance thereof were held to be null and void
as no advertisement had been issued by the authorities
before such selection. This Court, in Hrushikesh
Bindhani (supra) though permitted persons like the
petitioners to participate in the fresh selection process
yet they could not be successful. Thus, their initial
engagement cannot be treated as valid in any manner.
They have continued for more twenty years on the
strength of interim orders passed by this Court as well
as the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal.
Notwithstanding, such continuance, in view of the ratio
decided in Hrushikesh Bindhani (supra) and as followed
in subsequent decisions, the engagement of the
petitioners cannot be treated as valid in any manner.
Under such circumstances, rejection of their
representations by the Secretary of the department
cannot be faulted with in any manner.
6. Be that as it may, fact remains that the petitioners
have rendered continuous service for more than 20
years to the State. Viewed differently, the State has
Page 6 of 8
utilized the services of the petitioners for all these years.
It is stated at the bar that almost all the petitioners have
become age-barred for any public employment.
Therefore, throwing them out of employment at this
stage of their lives would seriously prejudice them. It is
also stated at the bar that large number of vacancies
still exist in equivalent posts such as Junior Teacher
(schematic). Persons engaged in the first phase
pursuant to the original advertisement have in the
meantime, become regular teachers. This Court is fully
conscious that the petitioners’ cannot claim parity with
them but then, the fact that their services have been
utilized by the State for more than two decades, their
plight cannot be ignored altogether. It must be
remembered that in a welfare State like India, the State
being a benevolent and model employer can always
come forward to protect the rights of its citizens
particularly, those affecting their right to livelihood.
Thus, while this Court refrains from issuing any
mandamus directing the authorities to regularize the
services of the petitioner, it can certainly direct the
Page 7 of 8
authorities to take a sympathetic view in respect of
these persons by considering to regularize their services
against the available vacancies, at least prospectively.
7. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ
application is disposed of by directing the State
authorities to sympathetically consider the cases of the
petitioners and to take a decision regarding
regularization of their services at least prospectively
without any financial benefits for the past period of
engagement. A decision in this regard shall be taken
within two months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
………………………….
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,Cuttack
Date: 05-Apr-2025 14:56:37
Page 8 of 8
[ad_1]
Source link