PRUTHIRAJ JENA Vs. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made to the inaction of opposite party No.1 for not regularizing the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, i.e, 26.03.2010. Facts:

(2.) The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure-1) made by opposite party No.1 to fill up the post of Steno (Grade-III), the petitioner applied for the same and after due selection, he was appointed on 26.03.2010 in accordance with the provision of the erstwhile Orissa District and Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called "Rules,1969"). On the other hand, he was issued with the appointment letter temporarily on Ad hoc basis and posted in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Basudevpur. Thereafter, the Ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was renewed from year to year but could not be regularized under the impression that his appointment was made under the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts (Special Scheme) (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called "the Rules,2001") although he was appointed against the regular post under Rules, 1969. Instead of regularizing the service of the petitioner, the opposite party No.1 made fresh advertisement on 09.05.2012 for the post of Junior Stenographer (Grade-III) which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1354 of 2013 and this Court disposed of that writ petition on 18.01.2013 directing opposite party No.1 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Geetanjali Pattnaik and others Vs. District Judge, Balasore and another (W.P.(C) Nos.9690, 9691 and 9692 of 2009), if the ratio of the said cases applies to the case of the petitioner.

(3.) In pursuance of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioner made representation on 22.01.2013 and the learned District Judge, Bhadrak-opposite party No.1, passed order on 08.04.2013 (Annexure-7) regularizing the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.04.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that his regularization should have been made from the date of his initial appointment because in similar matter in the case of Satya Kumar Das Vs. District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak and another (W.P.(C) No.22244 of 2010), this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24.01.2012 with following observation:-