SRIMANTA KUMAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal is directed against an order dtd. 18/7/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.C (OAC) No.2193 of 2014 and batch of cases whereby the plea of the present Appellants, who are the Accountants working in the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBV) were praying for the regularization of their services. It appears that another set of employees, namely, part-time Teachers, Cooks and Watchmen were engaged in the same institutions, had earlier filed a separate writ petition before the learned Single Judge, i.e., W.P.(C) No.25385 of 2014 which came to be dismissed on 21/12/2017. The writ appeal against that judgment was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 6/3/2019 in W.A. No.159 of 2018.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has chosen to follow the aforementioned orders of the coordinated Bench in rejecting the plea of the present Appellants. Although it was sought by Mr. Jayant Kumar Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the case of the Appellant/Accountants stood on a different footing from the other class of employees, the fact remains that their engagement was only on casual basis and created no vested right for regularization.

(3.) One of the issues discussed in the earlier judgment dtd. 21/12/2017 by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25385 of 2014 and batch was the legal validity of the decision dtd. 17/7/2014 of the State Project Director to remove the male staff engaged in the KGBVs which were 750 in number with boarding facilities at elementary level "for girls belonging predominantly to the SC, ST, OBC and minorities in difficult areas". It was noted that the Schools might have to be set up in areas with concentration of tribal population with low female literacy with the large number of girls out of school. The objective was to ensure access and quality education to the girls of the disadvantaged groups. It was accordingly decided that preferably only female staff should be deputed as concern was set up about male Teachers and Accountants "having access to living quarters of girls". In that view of the matter, the rational regarding disengagement of male staff which applied to other posts of male cooks, drivers, etc., will equally apply to the accountants like the present Appellants. With the said decision already having been affirmed by the learned Single Judge and the said judgment having been further confirmed by the Division Bench, the case of the present Appellants could not be placed on a different footing as urged.