Long-serving contractual employees in sanctioned posts cannot be denied regularisation on mechanical procedural grounds.

The petitioner was engaged by Shailabala Women’s Autonomous College, Cuttack, initially claimed from 1 December 2000 and, at the latest, from 1 September 2005, as a peon/Laboratory Attendant in the Computer Science Department on daily-wage or contractual terms. He thereafter performed duties in various departments and assisted in admissions, examinations and other college work. The Principal recorded his satisfactory service and, by order dated 31 August 2010, continued him as a contractual Laboratory Attendant against the Self-Finance Department.

The College had sanctioned posts of Laboratory Attendant, with substantial vacancies. In 2010, the Principal recommended regularisation of the petitioner along with similarly engaged employees, including Anama Charan Nayak, who was subsequently regularised pursuant to proceedings before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal and this Court. The petitioner’s representation for similar treatment was rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department, on 9 August 2019 on the grounds that his engagement was not against a sanctioned post, had not followed the prescribed recruitment procedure and did not comply with reservation requirements under the General Administration Department Resolutions dated 17 September 2013 and 16 January 2014.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, alleging arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d), particularly in comparison with Anama Charan Nayak.

1. Whether the order dated 9 August 2019 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for regularisation was arbitrary, perverse and vitiated by failure to consider the material facts and documents on record?

2. Whether the petitioner’s long and continuous contractual engagement, qualifications, satisfactory service and employment against available sanctioned vacancies made his appointment at least “irregular”, rather than “illegal”, so as to attract consideration for regularisation under the principles in Umadevi and M.L. Kesari?

3. Whether non-compliance with the reservation requirements and recruitment conditions under the General Administration Department Resolutions dated 17 September 2013 and 16 January 2014 could, in the circumstances, justify rejection of the petitioner’s claim after the State had continuously utilised his services for more than a decade?

4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to parity of consideration with Anama Charan Nayak, whose services had been regularised despite being engaged from the same Self-Finance Fund?

The Court applied the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments recognised in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, and explained in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247: an appointment made against a sanctioned post by a qualified person may be irregular, rather than illegal, and long-serving employees meeting the relevant conditions may be considered for regularisation as a one-time measure.

It relied on the Odisha General Administration Department Resolutions dated 17 September 2013 and 16 January 2014, which provide for regular appointment of existing contractual Group-C and Group-D employees after six years of satisfactory contractual service, subject to the prescribed conditions.

The Court further applied Articles 14, 16 and 21, the State’s obligation to act as a model employer, and the principle that prolonged contractual engagement cannot be used to perpetuate exploitative or arbitrary employment conditions.

Under Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 3 SCC 272, the validity of an administrative order must be judged by the reasons stated in the order itself and cannot be supported by new reasons introduced later by affidavit.

The Court also relied on the principles of equal treatment and non-arbitrariness in cases involving similarly situated employees.

The Court found that the impugned order mechanically reproduced the eligibility conditions in the 2013 and 2014 Resolutions without explaining why the petitioner failed to satisfy them or addressing the documentary evidence showing sanctioned vacancies, his qualifications, selection at the College level, satisfactory performance and continuous service.

The record showed that the College had sanctioned posts of Laboratory Attendant and substantial vacancies, while the petitioner had been continuously engaged and assigned regular, perennial institutional duties for more than ten years without the protection of any interim order.

The Court held that any procedural deficiency in the petitioner’s initial engagement could not automatically render it illegal, particularly where no lack of qualification, sanctioned vacancy, mala fides, nepotism or unfair selection process had been demonstrated.

It further held that the State could not rely retrospectively on reservation or procedural lapses attributable to the appointing authority after utilising the petitioner’s services for more than two decades, especially when a similarly placed employee paid from the same Self-Finance Fund had been regularised.

The reasons subsequently advanced in the counter-affidavit regarding the Odisha Laboratory Attendant Service Rules, 2012 could not validate the impugned order because those reasons were absent from the order itself.

The order was accordingly set aside.

However, the Court did not itself direct immediate regularisation; instead, it remitted the petitioner’s claim to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education Department, for fresh consideration in light of the judgment and the applicable legal principles, to be completed within three months.

The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.