DEBASIS PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ applications are of analogous nature. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners and the private opposite parties in the above writ applications were given ad hoc/temporary appointment for a term of 44 days in the posts of Demonstrator Attendant, Truck Helper (Attendant), Junior Clerk-cum-Typist and Junior Grade Typist in the Directorate of Horticulture and its different subordinate offices. Since the appointments of the petitioners were regularized and the services of the private opposite parties were terminated, the private opposite parties filed O.A. Nos.1035, 1036, 1037 and 1039 of 1996 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, questioning termination of their ad hoc appointments, non-regularization of their services and regularization of the services of the petitioners. Their main contention before the Tribunal was that the services of the petitioners have been regularized without following the provisions of Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to Posts of Junior Clerks in the District Offices) Rules, 1985 and other recruitment rules and instructions. Further, in some cases, ad hoc appointments have been made after dispensing with the services of the previous ad hoc appointees.

(3.) The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that they were appointed on ad hoc basis due to urgency and great necessity. In that capacity they worked for a pretty longtime with artificial breaks. Subsequently, when regular posts were available their case and the cases of the private opposite parties were considered for regularization on the basis of their performance during the ad hoc period and also by way of interview. As the private opposite parties were not found suitable, their services were not regularized. Since by the regularization of their services, the private opposite parties are in no way affected, the Original Applications were not maintainable, which otherwise were also barred by limitation. It was further averred that because of regularisation of their service, they have enjoyed the usual service benefits, such as sanction of increments, contribution to Group Insurance Scheme, subscription to G.P.F., opening of service book, etc.