HRUSIKES SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in both these writ petitions centers roundrecruitment on contractual basis in different departments of the State Government.

(2.) AT the out-set, learned counsel for the opposite parties-State raised a preliminaryobjection with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions in view of Section 15 of theAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said section deals with jurisdiction, powers andauthority of State Administrative Tribunals and stipulates that Administrative Tribunalsalone shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers andauthority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts except Supreme Court inrelation to recruitment and matters concerning to any civil service of the State or to anycivil post under the State. According to learned counsel as the appointments are against"civil services", the writ petition is not maintainable.

(3.) AFTER considering all the materials meticulously, this Court feels that the servicesunder the Central Government and the State Government are broadly classified into twocategories, being civil services and defence services. In other words, if a person is notserving in any defence establishment, he should be presumed to be a civil service moreso when relationship between him and the State Government or the CentralGovernment, as the case may be, is that of employee and employer.