ADVERTISEMENT
Orissa High Court
M. Srinivas vs State Of Odisha on 19 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 12623 of 2017
(In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
M. Srinivas ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through
its Secretary in the Information Technology
Department, Bhubaneswar.
2. Odisha Computer Application Center
(OCAC), represented through its Chief
Executive Officer (Administrative),
Bhubaneswar.
3. Chairman, Odisha Computer Application
Center, Bhubaneswar.
4. General Manager, Odisha Computer
Application Center, Bhubaneswar. ....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case
For Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das,
Advocate
For Opp. Party No.1 : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra
Addl. Standing Counsel
For Opp. Party Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty,
Advocate
----------------------------
Page 1 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 12.03.2026 Date of Judgment: 19.05.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J. The present writ petition has been preferred
assailing the legality and propriety of the Advertisement dated
17.06.2017 (Annexure-7) issued by the Odisha Computer
Application Centre (for brevity, 'OCAC'), for filling up two posts
of Software Engineer on regular basis against which the
Petitioner has been working. The Petitioner further seeks for a
direction for regularisation of his service as a Software Engineer
under OCAC in the regular scale of pay along with all
consequential service and financial benefits.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner, as detailed in the writ
petition, that he was appointed as a Software Engineer
pursuant to a public advertisement dated 22.06.2001 issued in
the daily newspaper "Sambad" inviting applications for various
posts, including Software Engineer, on contractual basis. After
undergoing a due and transparent selection process, the
Petitioner was selected and appointed vide office order dated
11.01.2002 (Annexure-1) on contractual basis with a
consolidated remuneration and joined his duties on 18.01.2002
at Berhampur. Since then, the Petitioner has been
uninterruptedly serving in OCAC. Although his appointment
Page 2 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
was initially on contractual basis, the engagement was renewed
from time to time through successive orders issued by the
competent authority; the last of such extension was issued on
01.03.2017. As on the date of filing the Writ Petition, the
Petitioner completed around 15 years of uninterrupted and
satisfactory service in the post of Software Engineer.
2.1. Considering the autonomous nature of OCAC as an
instrumentality of the State and the continuous requirement of
technical personnel, the Authorities of OCAC themselves
acknowledged the necessity of regularising the Petitioner's
service. In this regard, the General Manager, OCAC, vide letter
dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure-3), formally recommended to the
State Government in the Information Technology Department
for regularisation of service of the Petitioner against a
sanctioned vacant post of Software Engineer, subject to
approval of the Finance Department. Thereafter, in the Agenda
dated 04.07.2014 placed before the 40th Governing Body
Meeting (Annexure-4), the issue regarding regularisation of
service of contractual employees, including the Petitioner, was
taken up. In the meeting held on 24.07.2014, vide Agenda
No.16 (Annexure-5), a decision was taken to regularise
employees who had completed more than six years of service,
Page 3 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
subject to verification of recruitment process and compliance
with the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services
(for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975, shortly,
'ORV Act'. However, the Governing Body further suggested that
employees with more than ten years of service should be given
priority as they have crossed the permissible age for fresh
recruitment.
2.2. Subsequently, in the Management Meeting held on
31.12.2015, it was again resolved to place the matter before the
Governing Body for regularisation of service of the Petitioner
and similarly situated employees, while continuing their
contractual engagement in the meantime. Despite these
repeated resolutions and recommendations, no formal order of
regularisation was issued by the Authorities, though the
Petitioner continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly,
which clearly demonstrates his service to be permanent and
indispensable of nature.
2.3. While the Petitioner was legitimately expecting
regularisation in terms of the decisions taken by OCAC and the
applicable Government Resolution dated 15.02.2014 providing
for regularisation of contractual employees on completion of six
years of service, the Management of OCAC issued the impugned
Page 4 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
Advertisement dated 17.06.2017 inviting applications for filling
up two posts of Software Engineer on regular basis. Hence, it
has been stated that the said advertisement is per se illegal,
arbitrary and unjust, as it seeks to fill up posts against which
the Petitioner has been continuously working for years, without
first considering his claim for regularisation. The Advertisement
also prescribes an upper age limit of 45 years as on 31.12.2016
and altered eligibility criteria, which effectively debars the
Petitioner from applying for the said post, thereby attempting to
oust him from service after extracting his labour for more than
two decades. After serving OCAC for such a prolonged period, he
has crossed the age of fresh recruitment and termination at this
stage would deprive him of his livelihood and cause irreparable
injury to him and his dependent family members. It has been
stated that, the action of the authorities in issuing the
impugned advertisement, instead of regularising the Petitioner
are thus arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to
the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
3. Opposing to such prayer made in the writ petition,
the Opposite Parties have filed two separate Counter Affidavits.
The State of Odisha (Opposite Party No.1) has filed a Counter
Page 5 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
stating that the writ petition is not maintainable in law or fact
and is liable to be dismissed. It has been stated that OCAC is a
distinct and autonomous body registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, governed by its own Bye-Laws and
Service Rules, with an independent governing body. The
Electronics and Information Technology Department acts only
as an Administrative Department and has no control over
OCAC's recruitment or staffing decisions.
3.1. It is the stand of the Opposite Party No.1 that
although OCAC sought approval in the year 2014 for creation of
regular posts and regularization of service of certain contractual
employees, including the Petitioner, as OCAC is a distinct legal
entity, being a Society, is governed by its own Service Rules and
Bye-Laws, prescribing qualifications and recruitment
procedures, is not required to seek the approval of the
Administrative and Finance Department to regularize its own
employees. Moreover, Information and Technology Department
is only an Administrative Department and has no control over
OCAC's recruitment and staffing decisions. It has further been
stated that no approval or assurance was ever granted by the
State Government. The recommendation for regularization is
legally unsustainable, as the Petitioner's engagement was not
Page 6 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
against any sanctioned post and was made without Finance
Department's concurrence, and did not follow prescribed
recruitment procedures or reservation norms, as required under
the Government Resolution dated 17.09.2013.
3.2. It is further stand of the Opposite Party No.1 that the
Petitioner was engaged purely on a contractual and temporary
basis on consolidated remuneration, without any advertisement
or due selection process, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Mere long tenure or possession of qualifications
does not confer any right to regularization, and appointments
made through back-door entry cannot be regularized.
3.3. Regarding the challenge to the Advertisement dated
17.06.2017, it has been stated that the Petitioner has no locus
standi to challenge the same, as his own engagement is
allegedly illegal. Accordingly, the State has denied all the
allegations and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition,
allegedly being devoid of merit.
3.4. The Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 (OCAC), in their
Counter Affidavit, have also opposed the writ petition as not
maintainable in law or on facts. It has been stated that the
Petitioner was never appointed through direct recruitment
under Rule-11 of the OCAC Service Rules, 1997, but was
Page 7 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
engaged purely on contractual basis under Rule-17 on agreed
terms, with clear undertakings that he would not claim
regularization, regular pay, or service benefits. Having accepted
such terms, the Petitioner is estopped from seeking
regularization. OCAC, though receiving partial grant-in-aid from
the Government, is a Society governed by its own Service Rules
which prescribe qualifications and recruitment procedures.
3.5 A stand has been taken that the Petitioner was
engaged in the year 2002 as a Software Engineer on temporary
basis, project-based contractual terms for six months, extended
from time to time with breaks, subject to performance and
Governing Body's approval. He did not possess the prescribed
qualification for the post, his qualification being only B.Com
with PGDCA, did not meet the eligibility criteria under the
OCAC Service Rules or the Advertisement dated 17.06.2017. His
engagement was terminable at any stage without assigning
reasons and did not confer any right to continuity or
permanency.
3.6. It is further stand that the Advertisement dated
17.06.2017 was issued strictly in accordance with the Service
Rules to fill up sanctioned posts through open recruitment. The
allegation that it was issued to oust the Petitioner has been
Page 8 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
denied. It has been stated that age relaxation upto 45 years
was approved to enable contractual employees to participate.
While proposals for restructuring and recruitment rules are
under process, any creation of posts or regularization requires
approval of the Administrative and Finance Departments. OCAC
has facilitated participation of contractual employees in the
recruitment process, and the Petitioner has no enforceable legal
right to seek regularization. Accordingly, it has been stated that
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the writ
petition, in the Rejoinder Affidavit, the Petitioner denies and
disputes the assertions made in the Counter Affidavit of
Opposite Party No.1, stating that the plea of absence of a
sanctioned post is misconceived, as such long continuance with
payment from the Government exchequer necessarily implies
sanctioned necessity.
4.1. It has further been stated that denial of
regularization on such ground is untenable; particularly when
an advertisement has been issued to fill up the same post on
regular basis from the open market, ignoring the Petitioner's
accrued rights. Refusal to regularize after extracting service for
23 years is asserted to be grossly exploitative and impermissible
Page 9 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
in law. Moreover, in the Rejoinder to the Counter filed by
Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4, the Petitioner has stated that OCAC
is an instrumentality of the State, controlled and funded by the
Electronics & Information Technology Department, Government
of Odisha, discharging public functions and therefore amenable
to writ jurisdiction with State Rules on regularization fully
applicable to it.
4.2. The Petitioner disputes the reliance on Rule-17 of
the OCAC Service Rules, 1997, stating that it does not bar
regularization, especially when he was selected through due
process and has rendered uninterrupted service since 2002. It
is the stand of the Petitioner that the Odisha Group-B Post
(Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 and G.A. Department
Notification dated 17.01.2014 apply to OCAC and mandate
regularization after six years of service. Having completed more
than 18 years of continuous service (around 24 years of service
as on date) against the vacant post of Software Engineer, denial
of regularization is stated to be illegal.
4.3. It has been further stated that prescription of higher
qualification in the Advertisement cannot defeat the Petitioner's
accrued rights, particularly as he has since acquired the MCA
qualification. It is also pointed out that OCAC itself had
Page 10 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
recommended regularization of service of long-serving
contractual employees, thereby contradicting its present stand.
As the post of Software Engineer exists in the cadre strength
with financial concurrence, no further approval is required.
Accordingly, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the
Advertisement dated 17.06.2017 and for his regularization with
all consequential benefits.
5. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
reiterating the facts detailed in the writ petition, submitted that
the Petitioner has now completed about 24 years of
uninterrupted service. The plea as to his engagement was
project-based and subject to undertakings not to claim regular
scale of pay, is factually incorrect and legally untenable. The
very issuance of an advertisement to fill up two posts of
Software Engineer demonstrates that the post is perennial and
part of the regular cadre of OCAC, and not confined to any
project. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on a
recent judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7661 of 2020 and
batch, decided on 24.10.2025, [Manas Ranjan Samal (since
dead) through his LRs & Ors. Vrs. State of Odisha & Ors.],
further submitted that the undertakings of the Petitioner, relied
upon by the Opposite Parties, cannot operate as an estoppel
Page 11 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
against his claim for regularization, as such undertakings are
exploitative in nature. Even, reliance was placed on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Negi &
Ors. Vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in
2020 (I) OLR (SC) 865, to substantiate the argument that long
and continuous service in a project also entitles an employee to
seek for regularization. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner
further relied upon a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court
and this Court to substantiate the stand that long and
uninterrupted continuance in service, particularly, when initial
appointment is made through a proper selection process and
against the need of the Organization, entitles an employee to
regularization. Reliance had been placed on the principles laid
down in State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L. Kesari, reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 947, Amarkanta Rai Vrs. State of Bihar and
others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 265, Nihal Singh Vrs. State
of Punjab, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65, and other recent
judgments in Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal and another Vrs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221,
Dharam Singh & others Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735. It was argued
Page 12 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
that even in cases where formal creation of posts is absent, the
authorities are duty-bound to create posts and regularize
employees, who have been allowed to continue for long periods
and that prescription of higher qualification in the
advertisement cannot defeat the accrued rights of the
Petitioner, particularly as he has since acquired the MCA
qualification.
6. Per Contra, learned State Counsel for the Opposite
Party No.1 relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court to
support its stand in the Counter, including in State of
Maharashtra and Another Vrs. Bhagwan & Others,
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28, wherein it has been held that
the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim as a
matter of right the same service benefits at par with the
Government employees. Relying on the judgment in State of
Orissa & others Vrs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3
SCC 436, it was argued that, an appointment made without
any advertisement and any selection process / interview, does
not meet the requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, as the same deprives all other eligible
candidates of submitting their candidatures and participating
in the competition undertaken for filling up for such a post.
Page 13 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
Relying on the judgment in Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vrs.
Ram Ashray Mahoto & Ors., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 209, it
was argued that illegal appointments made without
advertisement or proper selection process cannot be
regularized. It was further argued that employees of
autonomous bodies cannot claim parity with Government
employees merely because such bodies are funded or
administratively linked to the Government. It was also argued
that internal office memoranda, recommendations, or
resolutions of OCAC, which have not culminated in a final
decision or statutory approval by the competent authority, do
not confer any enforceable right upon the Petitioner to claim
regularization or other service benefits.
7. Additionally Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the
Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the judgments of the
Supreme Court, referred to by the Petitioner, have no
application to the present case as his engagement was purely
contractual. Further, the Petitioner was never appointed
through direct recruitment under Rule-11 of the OCAC Service
Rules, 1997. Rather his engagement was purely on contractual
basis in terms of Rule-17 of the OCAC Service Rules, 1997 on
agreed terms, with clear undertakings that Petitioner would not
Page 14 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
claim regularization, regular pay, or service benefits. Having
accepted such terms, the Petitioner is estopped from seeking
regularization.
8. In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel
for the parties and after perusal of records so also the
judgments cited by the parties, the following issues emerge to
be dealt with and answered by this Court.
I) Whether the initial engagement of the Petitioner, who
was appointed on contractual basis, is illegal and
/or irregular?
II) Whether, the Petitioner has any lawful right to claim
regularization of his service in the post of Software
Engineer in OCAC and consequential benefits,
despite the terms of contractual engagement and his
own undertaking executed on 26.11.2011 and
subsequent undertakings executed each year till
2018, as at Annexure- B/2 Series to the Counter filed
by OCAC ?
III) Whether, despite its own recommendations for
regularization, the action of the Management of
OCAC in not recognizing the Petitioner's continuous
service of almost about 24 years as on date, for the
purpose of regularization is arbitrary and violative of
Article-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India?
IV) To what relief, if any, the Petitioner is entitled to?
9. So far as Issue No.1, the Petitioner in paragraph-4 of
the writ petition has specifically averred that in order to manage
Page 15 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
the training and e-governance in the IT Sector, Staff have been
engaged by OCAC, including Software Engineers. It has further
been stated that, according to the requirement of OCAC an
advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper "Sambad"
dated 22.06.2001 to fill up different posts on contractual basis.
After following due process of selection, the Petitioner was
selected and appointed as a Software Engineer in OCAC vide
Office Order/Letter No.55(15) dated 11.01.2002 on contractual
basis with consolidated remuneration, pursuant to which he
joined the said post at Berhampur on 18.01.2002.
9.1. In response to such averments, Opposite Party Nos.2
to 4(OCAC), in paragraph-8 of their Counter Affidavit, have
admitted the said fact. Relevant portion from paragraph-8 of the
Counter filed by OCAC is extracted below;-
"After obtaining due approval, an advertisement
was published on 22.06.2001 for the posts of
Software Engineer with the qualification of MCA /
BE / B.Tech / B-Level / PGDCA. It is noteworthy to
submit here that the petitioner along with 14
others was selected for the post and appointed
vide office order no.55(15) dtd.11.01.2002. The
qualification of the Petitioner was B.com with PGDCA
and the engagement of the petitioner was purely on
temporary basis for a period of six months which was
extended thereafter subject to satisfactory performance
and depending upon the requirement of the project."
(Emphasis supplied)
9.2. However, as a stand has been taken by the OCAC
in its Counter that sanction is awaiting at Government level for
Page 16 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
permanent absorption of the Petitioner, being directed vide
order dated 06.12.2024, the State (Opposite Party No.1) filed a
Counter Affidavit on 18.07.2025. It has been stated in the
Counter filed by the State that OCAC is a legal distinct entity
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is
governed by its own By-Laws and Service Rules, i.e., Orissa
Computer Application Centre Service Rules,1997, shortly, 'the
Rules,1997', which clearly states that OCAC has its own
Governing Body, cadre structure, and service Rules and the
Electronics & Information Technology Department functions
only as the Administrative Department, and it does not exercise
day-to-day control over OCAC's staffing decisions. Despite
taking such a stand, a stand has also been taken by the State in
its Counter that mere possession of qualifications and long
tenure under the contractual engagement do not confer any
legal entitlement to regular appointment in public service. As
per the settled principles of service law and constitutional
mandate under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, a
public employment must be secured through an open,
transparent and competitive recruitment process.
9.3. It has also been stated in the Counter filed by the
State that the appointment of the Petitioner was allegedly made
Page 17 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
without any advertisement, but only through an interview,
which did not meet the test of consideration, for which the very
appointment / initial engagement of the Petitioner is bad in the
eye of law. Such a stand taken by the State (Opposite Party
No.1) in its Counter is without any basis and contrary to the
admission made by the Management of OCAC in its Counter, as
has been extracted above. Hence, is not acceptable.
9.4. However, the Management of OCAC, in its Counter,
has taken a stand that the appointment of the Petitioner was
not a direct recruitment in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1997.
Rather, it was an appointment under Rule 17, wherein the
appointment of the Petitioner was made and finalized on the
terms and conditions as mutually agreed by OCAC and the
Petitioner. Hence, it would be apt to reproduce below Rule 17 of
the OCAC Service Rules, 1997 for ready reference:
"Recruitment by Deputation or Contract
17. Recruitment by Deputation or Contract :
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these
rules, the appointing authority may fill up any
post in the OCAC by (i) deputation from Government
or other Sources or (ii) contractual appointment
for specified periods.
(2) Recruitment by deputation shall be subject to such
terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the
OCAC (the borrowing authority) and the lending
authority, subject to the general norms formulated
from time to time.
(3) Recruitment by contractual arrangements shall be
finalised on such terms and conditions as may
Page 18 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
mutually be agreed upon by the OCAC and the
appointees concerned."
(Emphasis supplied)
9.5. As is revealed from the said Rules extracted above,
the Appointing Authority may fill up any post in OCAC by
deputation from the Government or other sources, or by giving
contractual appointments for specified periods. Admittedly,
since the date of initial engagement of the Petitioner, there are
two sanctioned posts of Software Engineers in OCAC. The
Petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis through an open
advertisement and on being selected following due selection
process, as has been admitted by the Management of OCAC in
paragraph-8 of the Counter Affidavit. As per the said
advertisement published on 22.06.2001 for the posts of
Software Engineer, the required qualification was
MCA/BE/B.Tech/B-Level/PGDCA. Admittedly, the Petitioner
had the requisite qualification of PGDCA in terms of the said
Advertisement dated 22.06.2001 and such appointment of the
Petitioner was made in terms Rule 17 of the OCAC Service
Rules, 1997.
9.6. Admittedly, the said appointment of the Petitioner
was in terms of Rule 17 of the OCAC Service Rules, 1997 with
due approval of the Information Technology Department, which
functions only as the Administrative Department and does not
Page 19 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
exercise day-to-day control over OCAC's recruitment and
staffing decisions. Further, as is revealed from the order dated
19.05.2001 passed by the Government of Odisha, Information
and Technology Department regarding filling up project posts in
OCAC, which was filed before this Court in form of a Memo by
the learned Counsel for the OCAC on 12.12.2025, permission
was sought for by the Management of OCAC from the IT
Department of the Government of Odisha. Such permission was
accorded to fill up various posts on a contractual basis,
including the post of Software Engineers, pursuant to which an
advertisement was published in the newspaper for selection and
appointment to various posts.
9.7. Hence, this Court is of the view that neither the
appointment of the Petitioner can be said to be illegal nor
irregular, as has been incorrectly stated in the Counter filed by
the State (Opposite Party No.1). Issue No.1 is answered
accordingly.
10. So far as Issue Nos.2 and 3, being interlinked, are
taken up together for the sake of brevity. Admittedly, as is
revealed from the records, the Petitioner, who was selected
following due procedure through an open advertisement, was
offered contractual engagement in OCAC as Software Engineer
Page 20 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.10,000/- per month vide
letter dated 11.01.2002 for the period of six months, which was
extended from time to time due to the satisfactory performance
of the Petitioner and the requirement of OCAC. Such
consolidated remuneration was also enhanced from time to
time, and the last such extension was for a period of one year
with effect from 06.03.2018 to 28.02.2019 vide Office Order
No.506 dated 28.02.2018/03.03.2018. As in most of the
documents appended to the writ petition so also Counter filed
by OCAC regarding contractual appointment of the Petitioner so
also extension of the said appointment from time to time, there
is a reference to the Finance Department Circular dated
31.12.2004, on being directed, the learned Counsel for the
OCAC filed the said Circular of the Finance Department,
wherefrom it is revealed that the Management of OCAC had to
ensure execution of written undertakings in the model form, i.e.,
Annexure-A, which forms a part of the said Circular, which
came into force almost three years after the appointment of the
Petitioner.
10.1. Admittedly, though a contractual offer was given to
the Petitioner for six months, due to his satisfactory
performance, not only the said contractual period was extended
Page 21 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
from time to time, but also his consolidated remuneration was
enhanced periodically.
10.2. That apart, the General Manager (Admn.), OCAC,
vide his Letter No.102 dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure-3), wrote to
the Under Secretary to Government, Information & Technology
Department, Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar, recommending the
case of the Petitioner so also another person, namely Amresh
Mishra, for regularization. A request was made vide the said
letter to seek for necessary approval from the Finance
Department regarding their regularization against the vacant
posts of Software Engineer. The contents of the said letter, being
relevant, are extracted below:-
"Our Ref: No. OCAC-Admn-113/2007-102 Dated-13.01.2014.
From
Shri Babaji Charan Das, OAS(S)
General Manager (Admn.)
To
The Under Secretary to Government,
Information Technology Department,
Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar
Sub: Regularization of staff engaged on contractual
basis.
Sir,
This is to inform you that representations are received
from Shri Amresh Mishra, Shri M. Srinivas and Sri Sanjay
Dey and Narendra Mallik, Driver who are working at OCAC
on contractual basis and outsourcing basis in different
projects of OCAC since year long. They have requested to
regularize their services at OCAC as per GA
Department Notification No.26108 dated 17/09/2013.
Their details of engagement are given in annexure-1.
Presently two vacant posts of Software Engineer
are available at OCAC. Since Shri Amresh Mishra and
Shri M.Srinivas are engaged for project work and
Page 22 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
their qualifications are matching to the qualifications
required for Software Engineer at OCAC, I would
therefore request you to obtain approval of Finance
Department regarding their regularization against
these vacant posts. Further, you are requested to move
Finance Department to create one post of Project Asst. (for
Shri Sanjay Dey) in IFITP Cell to carry out the work of IFITP
Cell smoothly and one post of Driver in OCAC to meet the
exigency."
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
General Manager (Admn.)
(Emphasis supplied)
10.3. Contents of paragraph (b) from the Annexure-I to the
said letter dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure-3), being relevant, are
extracted below:-
"b. Shri M. Srinivas: During the year 2001, IT
Department in its letter No.596 dated
19/05/2001 had permitted OCAC to engage 40
nos. of the Project Professionals viz: Deputy
Manager, Project Manager and Software
Engineers on contract basis. Applications were
invited for recruitment of professionals through
open advertisement. A written test and
interview was conducted by the Recruitment
Committee for engagement of the above staff.
Sri. M. Srinivas was selected as Software
Engineer by the Recruitment Committee and
engaged at OCAC initial for a period of six months on
a consolidated amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month
after due approval of Chief Executive. Since
then he has been managing the work of Facility
Centre at Berhampur and the period of
engagement extended on the basis of review of
performance and as per the requirement of
OCAC and now he is in charge of Facility
Centre, Berhampur."
(Emphasis supplied)
10.4. Further, Agenda No.16, which was placed in the
proceedings before the 40th Governing Body Meeting of OCAC,
held on 04.07.2014 (Annexure-4), being relevant, is reproduced
below:-
Page 23 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
"Agenda-16
Subject : Regularisation of Services of
Contractual Staff and outsourcing staff
who are working at OCAC for more
than six years.
Due to shortage of manpower, OCAC has
engaged 20 nos. of Technical and Non-technical staff
on contractual and outsourcing basis to manage the
day to day official work and different project work.
Out of the 20 staff, the following staffs are
serving for more than six years.
SI. Name Designation Date of Present Total
No. Joining Remuneration year of
and other Service
benefits if any
1 Amaresh Project 01/01/2000 Rs.15000/- 14+
Mishra Assistant
2 M. Software 01/07/2002 Rs.15000/- 11+
Srinivas Engineer
3 Sanjaya Artist 27/11/2001 Rs.12000/- 12+
Dey
4 Abhiram Accounts 03/02/2004 Rs.12000/- 10+
Sahoo Asst.
5 Alok Dey Project Asst. 12/02/2005 Rs.9000/- 9+
In the meantime, G.A Department vide
Resolution No.4591 dtd. 15.02.2014 have
clarified that on the date of satisfactory
completion of 6 years of contractual service or
from the date of publication of this Resolution,
whichever is later, they shall be deemed to have
been regularly appointed. A formal order of
regular appointment shall be issued by the
Appointing Authority."
(Emphasis supplied)
10.5. So far as Governing Body's observation in the
proceeding of the 40th GB held on 24.07.2014, as at
Annexure-5, being relevant, is extracted below:-
"AGENDA -16
Subject:Regularization of Services of Contractual
Staff and outsourcing staff who are working at
OCAC for more than six years.
The Governing Body observed that apart from
completion of 6 years of continuous service, there are
Page 24 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
some other conditions like engagement against
sanctioned post, due recruitment process followed or
not, ORV Act etc. in the GA Department circular. All
the above conditions may be re-examined again and
be placed before the next Governing Body.
However, the Governing Body suggested
that since OCAC is finalizing its restructuring
proposal, all these employees who have served
more than 10 years in OCAC may be given
priority/scope for lateral entry in the
restructuring proposal since they have already
crossed the required age limit and while
providing continuous service to OCAC in all
these years."
(Emphasis supplied)
10.6. Similarly, relevant portion from the Proceedings held
on 31.12.2015 for review of performance of the staff engaged on
contractual basis, as at Annexure-6, being germane, is
reproduced below;
"Shri M. Srinivas has been engaged as Software
Engineer in the Berhampur Facility Centre on
contractual basis since year 2002. Berhampur
Facility Centre is a Regional Center of OCAC in
Southern Odisha. Shri Srinivas has been engaged
at Berhampur Facility Centre from the date of
joining at OCAC and now continuing there. He
has been successfully carrying out all the
training programme and other services
rendered by the Berhampur Facility Centre.
The Committee opined that since, the above three
persons have been providing services to OCAC, for
more than 12 years, steps may be taken to
apprise the GB for regularization of their
services."
(Emphasis supplied)
10.7. The Government of Odisha, vide Resolution dated
17.09.2013 of the G.A & P.G Department, as at Annexure C/1,
took a policy decision to regularize the services of existing
contractual Group C and Group D employees, who are not
Page 25 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
holding any post in contravention of any statutory Recruitment
Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
of India or any executive instruction in absence of such rules.
As per the said policy decision, regular appointment of the
above categories of contractual employees shall be made on the
date of completion of six years of service or from the date of
publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, in the order in
which their names appear in the gradation list prepared under
para 1. The period of six years shall be counted from the date of
contractual appointment prior to publication of the said
Resolution. It was further resolved that, in case the person
concerned has crossed the upper age limit for entry into
Government service on the date of contractual appointment for
the corresponding regular post, the appointing authority shall
allow relaxation of upper age limit.
10.8. From the above extracts, it is amply clear that the
Petitioner was duly recruited on contractual basis. That apart,
OCAC has sought for approval of the State Government time
and again for regularization of service of its contractual staff
and the contractual tenure of six months was extended from
time to time which reflects that, the initial selection of the
Petitioner was made following due procedure against
Page 26 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
sanctioned/vacant posts. That apart, there are vacancies of two
permanent posts of Software Engineer to be filled, as is evident
from the impugned Advertisement dated 17.06.2017
(Annexure-7).
10.09. Admittedly, despite such recommendation so also
decisions of the Governing Body, the impugned advertisement
was made to fill up the posts of Computer Engineers, thereby
debarring the Petitioner for his absorption in the said
sanctioned post, as he has already crossed the required age
limit in terms of the said advertisement.
10.10. In a recent judgment in Rasmita Mishra Vs. State
of Odisha & Ors, [W.P.(C) No.24653 of 2025 and batch,
disposed of on 28.10.2025], relying on the case of Chandra
Mohan Negi (supra), the coordinate Bench directed the
concerned Department to regularize the services of the
Petitioners against vacant posts of Assistant Executive
Engineer, even though all the Petitioners were engaged on
contractual basis under the BRGF with consolidated
remuneration under a Scheme. Relying on the judgment in
Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra), Shripal (supra), the
coordinate Bench in Manas Ranjan Samal (supra), directed for
regularization of the services of the Petitioners in different posts
Page 27 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
under Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana Deep Bore Well Secha
Karyakrama, who were engaged on contractual basis through a
walk-in-interview as Junior Engineering (Mechanical). The
learned coordinate Bench in Manas Ranjan Samal (supra) held
as follows:-
"25. Therefore, only because the petitioners
submitted the so-called undertakings cannot
estopp them from claiming regularisation. It
need not be overemphasized that right to
livelihood is a fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. So, to
apply the principle of estoppel by brandishing
the undertaking submitted by the petitioners
would tantamount to violating their
fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It goes without saying that as
between the right under Article 21 and the so
called undertaking, it is the former that would
prevail.
26. This is a case of persons who have
rendered apparently satisfactory work to the
establishment for long periods of time without
the pay attached to their counterparts in the
regular establishment. If this is not
exploitation, then what is? The State cannot deny
such pay and create disparity among its employees.
What the authorities have done by labelling
petitioners as temporary employees is to create a
class within a class inasmuch as two sets of
employees, one regular and the other temporary, are
engaged for the same work. While the former are
handsomely paid, the latter are doled out meagre
remuneration not commensurate with their labours
for the State.
(Emphasis supplied)
10.11. So far as the stand of the State (Opposite Party No.1)
so also Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4 (OCAC), regarding the
contractual engagement of the Petitioner and undertakings
executed by him from time to time, thereby debarring him from
Page 28 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
claiming regularization under the Management of OCAC on the
ground of such undertakings, admittedly such undertakings
were obtained from the Petitioner from 2011 onwards in the
prescribed form, i.e., Form No-A. The Supreme Court, in a
recent Judgment in Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand and
Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129, held as
follows:
"11.6. The Constitution Bench in Basheshar
Nath v. Comm. Income Tax, long ago clarified that
fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution are incapable of waiver. Consequently, if
the action of the respondent-State is found to be
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the mere
fact that the appellants' engagement was governed
by contractual terms and conditions cannot be
construed as a waiver of their fundamental rights.
Unconscionable Agreements- Contract between
Lion and Lamb:
12. In Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo
Nath Ganguly, this Court acknowledged the
increasing imbalance in the bargaining power of
contracting parties. The Court held thus: -
"89. . . . We have a Constitution for our
country. Our judges are bound by their
oath to "uphold the Constitution and the
laws". The Constitution was enacted to
secure to all the citizens of this country
social and economic justice. Article 14 of
the Constitution guarantees to all
persons equality before the law and
the equal protection of the laws. The
principle deducible from the above
discussions on this part of the case is
in consonance with right and reason,
intended to secure social and
economic justice and conforms to the
mandate of the great equality clause
in Article 14. This principle is that
the courts will not enforce and will,
when called upon to do so, strike
down an unfair and unreasonable
contract, or an unfair and
Page 29 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
unreasonable clause in a contract,
entered into between parties who are
not equal in bargaining power. It is
difficult to give an exhaustive list of
all bargains of this type. No court can
visualize the different situations
which can arise in the affairs of men.
One can only attempt to give some
illustrations. For instance, the above
principle will apply where the
inequality of bargaining power is the
result of the great disparity in the
economic strength of the contracting
parties. It will apply where the
inequality is the result of
circumstances, whether of the
creation of the parties or not. It will
apply to situations in which the
weaker party is in aposition in which
he can obtain goods or services or
means of livelihood only upon the
terms imposed by the stronger party
or go without them. It will also apply
where a man has no choice, or rather
no meaningful choice, but to give his
assent to a contract or to sign on the
dotted line in a prescribed or
standard form or to accept a set of
rules as part of the contract, however
unfair, unreasonable and
unconscionable a clause in that
contract or form or rules may be. This
principle, however, will not apply where
the bargaining power of the contracting
parties is equal or almost equal. This
principle may not apply where both parties
are businessmen and the contract is a
commercial transaction. In today's
complex world of giant corporations with
their vast infrastructural organizations
and with the State through its
instrumentalities and agencies entering
into almost every branch of industry and
commerce, there can be myriad situations
which result in unfair and unreasonable
bargains between parties possessing
wholly disproportionate and unequal
bargaining power. These cases can neither
be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The
court must judge each case on its own
facts and circumstances."
(emphasis laid)
Page 30 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
Therefore, the Court has held that the
Constitution obliges courts to advance
social and economic justice and to give
effect to the equality mandate under
Article 14. Consequently, courts will
neither enforce nor hesitate to invalidate
contracts, or contractual clauses, that are
unfair or unreasonable when entered into
between parties with unequal bargaining
power.
12.1. Relying on the aforesaid reasoning, another
two-Judge Bench in Pani Ram v. Union of India,
reiterated that the guarantee of equality under Article
14 extends even to situations where a person has no
meaningful choice but to accept imposed contractual
terms, however unfair or unreasonable they may be.
Applying this principle to the facts before it, the Court
observed thus: -
"23. As held by this Court, a right to
equality guaranteed under
Article 14 of the Constitution of
India would also apply to a man who
has no choice or rather no meaningful
choice, but to give his assent to a
contract or to sign on the dotted line
in a prescribed or standard form or to
accept a set of rules as part of the
contract, however unfair,
unreasonable and unconscionable a
clause in that contract or form or
rules may be. We find that the said
observations rightly apply to the facts of
the present case. Can it be said that the
mighty Union of India and an ordinary
soldier, who having fought for the country
and retired from Regular Army, seeking re-
employment in the Territorial Army, have
an equal bargaining power. We are
therefore of the considered view that the
reliance placed on the said document
would also be of no assistance to the case
of the respondents."
(emphasis laid)
Therefore, it is clear that Courts are
empowered to invalidate unconscionable
elements of a contract where the parties
lack the ability to exercise any real or
meaningful choice in negotiating its terms.
In the present case, the appellants were
left with no alternative but to accept the
conditions unilaterally prescribed by the
Page 31 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
respondent-State in order to secure their
livelihood and sustain a source of income.
It would be entirely unrealistic to assume
that, in such circumstances, an employee
seeking temporary employment could
meaningfully negotiate or assert a position
against the overwhelming might of the
State machinery.
12.2. At this juncture, the analogy of apples and
oranges serves as a useful reminder that certain
relationships are inherently incapable of being
assessed on an equal plane. A contract between the
State and an employee stands on a similar footing.
The State, in such a relationship, assumes the
role of a metaphorical lion, endowed with
overwhelming authority, resources and
bargaining strength, whereas the employee,
who is yet an aspirant, is reduced to the
position of a metaphorical lamb, possessing
little real negotiating power. To suggest parity
between the two, i.e. the lion and the lamb,
would be to ignore the stark imbalance that
defines the relationship.
12.3. Therefore, where a lion contracts with a lamb,
the inequality is not incidental but structural, and it
is precisely this disproportion that calls for judicial
sensitivity. In such situations, the conscience of
Constitutional Courts must inevitably tilt in favour of
protecting the lamb. We have no hesitation in holding
that Constitutional Courts are duty-bound to act to
safeguard those who are vulnerable to exploitation,
so that employees are not compelled to meekly
submit to the demands of a vastly dominant
contracting party like the State, but are instead
assured that constitutional protections will intervene
to prevent such exploitation.
(Emphasis supplied)
10.12. So far as doctrine of legitimate expectation, it was further
held vide the said judgment as follows:
Legitimate Expectation of the employees: -
13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case
of contractual employees, such as the present
appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Where employees have continued to discharge their
duties on contractual posts for a considerable length
of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a
legitimate expectation arises that the State
would, at some stage, recognize their long and
continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered
Page 32 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
by repeated extensions granted by the
Executive, that such employees continue in
service and refrain from seeking alternative
employment, notwithstanding the contractual
nature of their engagement. At this juncture, it is
thus apposite to advert to the principles governing the
doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by
this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil
Kumar Sharma, wherein it was held as follows:-
"63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions
brings forth the following features
regarding the doctrine of legitimate
expectation:
63.1. First, legitimate expectation
must be based on a right as opposed
to a mere hope, wish or anticipation;
63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation
must arise either from an express or
implied promise; or a consistent past
practice or custom followed by an
authority in its dealings;
...
63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation
operates in the realm of public law,
that is, a plea of legitimate action can
be taken only when a public authority
breaches a promise or deviates from a
consistent past practice, without any
reasonable basis.
...
64. The aforesaid features, although
not exhaustive in nature, are
sufficient to help us in deciding the
applicability of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation to the facts of
the case at hand. It is clear that
legitimate expectation,
jurisprudentially, was a device
created in order to maintain a check
on arbitrariness in State action. It
does not extend to and cannot govern the
operation of contracts between private
parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory
estoppel holds the field."
(emphasis laid)
It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend
the expectation with which such
contractual employees continue in the
service of the State. The repeated conduct
of the employer-State in expressing
Page 33 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
confidence in their performance and
consistently granting monetary upgrades
& tenure extensions reasonably nurtures
an expectation that their long and
continuous service would receive further
recognition.
13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi, cautioned that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily be extended
to persons whose appointments are temporary,
casual or contractual in nature. The relevant extract
of the judgment reads as follows: -
"47. When a person enters a
temporary employment or gets
engagement as a contractual or
casual worker and the engagement is
not based on a proper selection as
recognised by the relevant rules or
procedure, he is aware of the
consequences of the appointment
being temporary, casual or
contractual in nature. Such a person
cannot invoke the theory of legitimate
expectation for being confirmed in the
post when an appointment to the post
could be made only by following a
proper procedure for selection and in
cases concerned, in consultation with
the Public Service Commission.
Therefore, the theory of legitimate
expectation cannot be successfully
advanced by temporary, contractual
or casual employees. It cannot also be
held that the State has held out any
promise while engaging these persons
either to continue them where they are or
to make them permanent. The State
cannot constitutionally make such a
promise. It is also obvious that the theory
cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief
of being made permanent in the post."
(emphasis laid)
However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that
the bar against invocation of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation applies only to those
temporary, contractual or casual employees
whose engagement was not preceded by a
proper selection process in accordance with the
extant rules. Consequently, where such
engagement is made after following a due and
lawful selection procedure, there is no absolute
Page 34 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
bar in law preventing such employees from
invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
(Emphasis supplied)
10.13. So far as limits on perpetual contractual
engagements, it was held in Bhola Nath (supra) as follows:
Limits on Perpetual Contractual Engagements:
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State
had engaged the services of the appellants on
sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was
only towards the end of the year 2022 that the
respondents communicated that no further
extension of the appellants' engagement was
likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid
action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but
is also in clear derogation of the equality
principles enshrined in Article 14 of
the Constitution. The respondent -State initially
engaged the appellants in their youth to
discharge public duties and functions. Having
rendered long and dedicated service, the
appellants cannot now be left to fend for
themselves, particularly when the employment
opportunities that may have been available to
them a decade ago are no longer accessible
owing to age constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for
the respondent-State's decision to discontinue the
appellants after nearly ten years of continuous
service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-
relationship between the appellants and the
respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the
State derived the advantage of the appellants'
experience and institutional familiarity, while
the appellants remained in public service. In
such circumstances, any departure from a long-
standing practice of renewal, particularly one that
frustrates the legitimate expectation of the
employees, ought to be supported by cogent reasons
recorded in a speaking order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a
conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has
satisfactorily discharged his duties over several
years and has been granted repeated extensions
cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or
undesirable. We are unable to accept the
justification advanced by the respondents as
Page 35 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
the obligation of the State, as a model
employer, extends to fair treatment of its
employees irrespective of whether their
engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,
deprecated the practice adopted by States of
engaging employees under the nominal labels of
"part-time", "contractual" or "temporary" in
perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not
regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India, this Court underscored that government-
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair
and stable employment, and evolved the test of
examining whether the duties performed by such
temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam and Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned against
a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra)
to deny regularization to temporary employees in the
absence of statutory rules. It was held
that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a
shield to legitimise exploitative engagements
continued for years without undertaking regular
recruitment. The Court further clarified
that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between
appointments that are "illegal" and those that are
merely "irregular", the latter being amenable to
regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed
conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court
strongly deprecated the culture of " ad-hocism"
adopted by States in their capacity as employers.
The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or
informalizing recruitment as a means to evade
regular employment obligations, observing that such
measures perpetuate precarious working conditions
while circumventing fair and lawful engagement
practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an
integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery
of the State continues to function. They are not
merely ancillary to the system, but form essential
components thereof. The equality mandate of our
Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be
reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness,
ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the
careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and
reason.
Page 36 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-
State's contention that the mere contractual
nomenclature of the appellants' engagement
denudes them of constitutional protection. The
State, having availed of the appellants' services
on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant
to a due process of selection and having
consistently acknowledged their satisfactory
performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent
reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly
discontinue such engagement by taking refuge
behind formal contractual clauses. Such action
is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the
obligation of the State to act as a model
employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under
Article 14 of the Constitution.
(Emphasis supplied)
10.14. So far as the stand of the State regarding
engagement of the Petitioner in project work, admittedly the
Petitioner is continuing as such since the date of his initial
engagement till date, i.e., for the last 24 years, in the same
Office at Berhampur and managing the said work smoothly and
his contractual period has been extended from time to time, the
same being found satisfactorily, with pay hike.
10.15. So far as the stand of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4
(OCAC), in its Counter Affidavit, is that OCAC is an Autonomous
Body under the administrative control of the State Government.
It has further been stated that OCAC repeatedly requested the
Government for approval to regularise the service of the
Petitioner and other contractual employees. However, no
response has been received from the State Government as
Page 37 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
against such request for regularisation till date. On the other
hand, the State Government, in its Counter Affidavit, has taken
a contrary stand stating that OCAC is a distinct legal entity.
OCAC, being a Society governed by its own Service Rules and
By-Laws, prescribing qualifications and recruitment procedures,
is not required to seek approval of the Administrative and
Finance Department to regularize its own employees, moreover,
Information and Technology Department, which is only an
Administrative Department and has no control over OCAC's
recruitment and staffing decisions. Furthermore, the stand of
the State-Opposite Party No.1 is that the Petitioner does not
possess the prescribed qualification for the post of Software
Engineer, his qualification being only B.Com with PGDCA,
which does not meet the eligibility criteria under the OCAC
Service Rules or the Advertisement dated 17.06.2017. Such a
stand is misplaced, as in addition to B.Com with PGDCA, the
Petitioner has acquired the MCA qualification since 2010, as at
Annexure-8 of the writ petition. That apart, the Management of
OCAC itself acknowledged due possession of educational
qualification as per the advertisement and the Petitioner was
appointed on "contractual basis" and thereafter, it sought
approval from the Government for regularisation of his service.
Page 38 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
11. From the discussions made above, so also materials
on record and the settled position of law, as detailed above, this
Court draws the following undisputed and irresistible
conclusions:-
i) OCAC is a distinct and Autonomous Body
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860.
ii) The Electronics and Information Technology
Department of Government of Odisha acts only
as an Administrative Department and has no
control over OCAC's recruitment or staffing
decisions.
iii) OCAC, having an independent Governing Body,
is governed by its own Bye-Laws and Service
Rules, which prescribe qualifications and
recruitment procedure.
iv) It is not required to seek approval of the
Administrative as well as Finance Department
of the State Government to regularize its own
employees, moreover, Information Technology
Department, it being only an Administrative
Page 39 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
Department having no control over OCAC's
recruitment and staffing decisions.
v) Still OCAC, vide its letter dated 12.12.2000
and 30.01.2021, sought for permission of the
Government of Odisha, Information Technology
Department to fill up the project posts in OCAC
on contractual basis.
vi) Permission was accorded by the Government
of Odisha, Information Technology Department
vide letter No.596 dated 19th May, 2001 to fill
up the project posts in OCAC on contractual
basis maximum for one year.
vii) Pursuant to such permission, an open
advertisement was made in Odia daily
newspaper "Sambad" on 22.06.2001 for
appointment in various posts on contractual
basis, including the posts of Software Engineer.
viii) As the Petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility
criteria as per the said advertisement dated
22.06.2001, including educational
qualification, i.e., PGDCA, he applied for the
said post of Software Engineer.
Page 40 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
ix) Being selected in a selection process, the
Petitioner was appointed as Software Engineer
vide office order dated 11.01.2002 for six
months on a consolidated salary of Rs.10,000/-
per month.
x) Such appointment of the Petitioner and
similarly placed others was made in terms of
Rule-17 of the OCAC Service Rules, 1997,
which permits the Management of OCAC to fill
up any posts in the OCAC by way of deputation
from Government or other sources or by way of
contractual appointments for specified periods.
xi) Though the appointment of the Petitioner was
made for six months, the same was extended
from time to time till the year 2018, indicating
in the said orders that the Petitioner's services
were found to be satisfactory. That apart, his
consolidated salary was also enhanced from
time to time.
xii) During his contractual service period, the
Petitioner, in addition to PGDCA, did MCA from
Page 41 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
Madurai Kamaraj University in the year 2010
through distance education.
xiii) Repeated recommendations were made by the
Management of OCAC for regularization of
service of the Petitioner, apart from taking a
decision in the proceedings of its meeting held
on 31.12.2015 regarding review performance of
the staff engaged on contractual basis by the
Committee to take necessary steps to apprise
the Governing Body of OCAC for regularization
of his service along with two others.
xiv) Despite such recommendations, the issue
regarding regularization of service of the
Petitioner could not be materialized on the plea
of awaiting sanction from the Government of
Odisha, Electronics and Information
Technology Department.
xv) As admitted by the State-Opposite Party No.1
in its Counter, Information Technology
Department, Government of Odisha is only an
Administrative Department and has no control
over OCAC's recruitment and staffing decision,
Page 42 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
which is being governed by its own Service
Rules and Bye-Laws, prescribing qualifications
and recruitment procedure. Hence, OCAC is
not required to seek the approval of
Information Technology Department to
regularise the service of the Petitioner.
xvi) The Petitioner is working in OCAC for the last
24 years on contractual basis on a consolidated
salary, which was being enhanced from time to
time because of his satisfactory performance.
xvii) The Berhampur Faculty Centre is the Regional
Centre of OCAC in southern Odisha, where the
Petitioner is working since the date of his
joining in OCAC in the year 2002, and is
successfully carrying out all the training
programs and other services rendered by the
Berhampur Faculty Centre, OCAC for the last
24 years.
xviii) Though the impugned advertisement was made
on 17.06.2017 to fill up two posts of Software
Engineers and age relaxation was given to the
persons working in OCAC on
Page 43 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
contractual/outsourcing basis to be under 45
years as on 31.12.2016, the Petitioner's age
was more than 45 years as on said date,
thereby, compelling him to approach this Court
seeking a direction for regularization of his
service as against the vacant post of Software
Engineer, with a further prayer to grant him all
consequential service as well as financial
benefits.
xix) Since the Petitioner's initial engagement on
contractual basis was with prior approval of the
Information Technology Department, following
due procedure of selection and against regular
vacancy and was in terms of Rule-17 of the
OCAC Service Rules, 1997, such an
appointment cannot be said to be illegal and/or
irregular.
xx) As held in Bhola Nath (supra), even if the
Petitioner executed undertakings in the
prescribed form from time to time in terms of
the Circular of the Finance Department dated
31.12.2004, which came into force much after
Page 44 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
the appointment of the Petitioner, such
contractual clause and undertakings, being
unfair and unreasonable, are not enforceable
and deserve to be declared as an invalid
contract.
xxi) Referring to Umadevi (supra), as held in
Bhola Nath (supra), the bar against invocation
of the doctrine of legitimate expectation only
applies to those temporary, contractual or
casual employees, whose engagement was not
preceded by a proper selection process in
accordance with the extant rules. Hence, as
detailed in the forgoing paragraphs, the
repeated conduct of the employer-OCAC in
expressing confidence in the performance of the
Petitioner and consistently granting monetary
upgradation and tenure extensions so also
recommendations to regularize his service, who
is working for the last 24 years on contractual
basis, reasonably natures an expectation that
the Petitioner's long and continuous service
would receive further recognition and the
Page 45 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
doctrine of legitimate expectation squarely
applies to the case of Petitioner deserving a
direction to regularise his service.
12. The factual backdrop, as detailed above, highlights a
classic case of long-term contractual exploitation, wherein,
despite admitted need, sanctioned posts and rendering
uninterrupted service for more than two decades against a
sanctioned post, so also repeated recommendations by OCAC
itself for regularisation of service of the Petitioner, the
Authorities have chosen to issue a fresh advertisement, thereby
attempting to displace the Petitioner from his service in an
arbitrary and illegal manner.
13. Law is well settled that, long-serving employees
engaged on part-time/temporary contracts, who have performed
essential, continuous duties for an extended period, are entitled
to be considered for regularization, and their employment status
and corresponding rights should be determined by the nature
and substance of the work performed rather than the formal
label of "temporary," "casual," or "part-time." Hence, even if the
Petitioner was appointed as a contractual employee and he
executed undertakings from 2011 onwards till 2018, as detailed
above, he has a right to pray for regularization of his service and
Page 46 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
consequential benefits. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered
accordingly in favour of the Petitioner.
14. So far as Issue No-4 regarding reliefs, in view of the
undisputed facts relating to the Petitioner's long, uninterrupted
and satisfactory service of more than two decades against the
post of Software Engineer; the admitted perennial and essential
nature of the duties discharged by him; the repeated
recommendations made by the OCAC Authorities themselves for
his regularization, and applying the binding principles laid down
by the Supreme Court in Bhola Ram (supra), Jaggo (supra),
Shripal (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra), this Court is of
the considered opinion that denial of regularisation to the
Petitioner is arbitrary, exploitative and violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and it is
directed as follows:
i. The impugned Advertisement dated 17.06.2017
(Annexure-7), so far as it relates to filling up the post
of Software Engineers, against which the Petitioner
has been continuously working for the last 24 years,
is hereby quashed.
Page 47 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
ii. In view of the proceedings of the 40th GB Meeting of
OCAC, as detailed in Paragraphs-10.4 and 10.5
above, the Petitioner shall stand permanently
absorbed / regularized in the cadre of Software
Engineer under Odisha Computer Application Centre
(OCAC), as a regular employee, with retrospective
effect from the date on which he completed six years
of continuous service, as may be permissible under
the applicable Government Resolutions.
iii) For the purpose of effectuating the above direction,
the Management of OCAC (Opposite Party Nos-2 to
4) shall absorb the Petitioner against a sanctioned
post of Software Engineer, which are lying vacant,
within a period of three months from the date of
communication of certified copy this Judgment.
iv) Upon such regularisation, the Petitioner shall be
placed at no less than the minimum of the regular
pay scale applicable to the post of Software Engineer
with continuity of service for all service and retiral
benefits, including seniority, pensionary benefits and
other terminal dues.
Page 48 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
v) The Petitioner shall be entitled to notional fixation of
pay from the date of retrospective absorption.
However, actual monetary benefits shall be payable
prospectively, unless otherwise admissible under
law, while the entire period of service shall be
counted for all consequential service benefits.
vi) The Opposite Parties shall complete the entire
exercise of regularisation, pay fixation and issuance
of consequential orders within three months hence.
vii) The Chief Executive Officer (Administrative), OCAC
or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an
Affidavit of compliance before this Court within three
months from the date of communication of the
certified copy this Judgment.
16. The writ petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observations and directions. There shall be no order
as to costs.
...................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Reason: Authentication
Location: High CourtThe
of Orissa, Cuttack
19th May, 2026 /Mona
Date: 20-May-2026 11:06:31
SPONSORED
Page 49 of 49
WP(C) No.12623 of 2017
