Orissa High Court
Shubhasmita Panjha vs State Of Odisha And Others on 17 July, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12231 of 2019
Shubhasmita Panjha .... Petitioner
Ms. Madhumita Panda, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
W.P.(C) No.12233 of 2019
Sangita Hota .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
W.P.(C) No.12236 of 2019
Nibedita Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
Page 1 of 22
W.P.(C) No.12237 of 2019
Rashmita Devi .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
W.P.(C) No.12238 of 2019
Laxmipriya Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
W.P.(C) No.12239 of 2019
Snehasudha Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
Page 2 of 22
W.P.(C) No.12240 of 2019
Khursheed Alam Khan .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
W.P.(C) No.12242 of 2019
Netaji Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
W.P.(C) No.12244 of 2019
Aditya Kumar Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
Page 3 of 22
AND
W.P.(C) No.12245 of 2019
Priyanka Mallik .... Petitioner
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Patra, Advocate & Associates
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. B. P Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
& Mr. Narayan Barik, Advocate
(O.P. No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:10.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:17.07.2026
1.
All the writ petitions are disposed of by the following
judgment for a common cause of action involved.
2. Instant writ petitions are filed by the petitioners
challenging the impugned decision of opposite party No.1 by
orders dated 22nd June, 2019 as at Annexure-13 in all the
cases) and to direct the opposite parties and in particular,
opposite party Nos.1 and 3 to allow them to continue as Data
Processing Assistants (DPAs)/Vital Statistics Clerks (VSCs)
in their existing posts and in that regard, to issue continuance
letters on the grounds stated therein and to pass such other
order(s) or issue direction(s) as may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts of each case are not separately stated for the
sake of brevity. The case of the petitioners is that they joined
Page 4 of 22
as the DPAs. The appointment of the petitioners was
contractual with a selection held pursuant to an advertisement
as per Annexure-1. In fact, opposite party No.2 issued the
advertisement to fill up 32 posts of the DPAs on contractual
basis for a period of one year in the offices of all the District
and Additional District Registrar of Birth and Death. The
petitioners faced the interview held on 15th February, 2015
and thereafter, opposite party No.2 issued the appointment
letters as per Annexure-3 in their favour and asked them to
join at the respective Head Quarters (HQs). The contractual
appointments of the petitioners were extended from time to
time. Such extension was continued till 2017. But all of a
sudden, on 20th April, 2017, opposite party No.3 intimated
the Chief District Medical Officers (CDMOs) of the State
regarding cessation of the contractual service w.e.f. 19 th May,
2017 as the Registrar General of India (RGI), New Delhi
stopped the financial assistance for hiring the manpower for
Civil Registration System (CRS) of the States. A copy of the
said letter dated 20th April, 2017 of opposite party No.3 is at
Annexure-5. But due to the shortage of staff in the offices of
the CDMOs in the State for registration of the births and
deaths, the Director, Public Health, Odisha requested the
Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Odisha for extension
of services of 32 DPAs for a further period of one year.
Simultaneously, by letter dated 17th July, 2017 as at
Annexure-6 series, the Director, Public Health, Odisha
requested the CDMOs for submission of performance reports
for renewal of contractual service of the DPAs and the State
Page 5 of 22
Coordinator, whereafter, opposite party No.3 by letter dated
25th July, 2017 extended their services for a period from 1st
April, 2017 to 28th February, 2018. Again, before expiry of
the above period, opposite party No.3 and the Director of
Health, Intelligence and Vital Statistics, Odisha by letter
dated 27th January, 2018 issued letters to the CDMOs
intimating therein that contractual services of the DPAs are to
cease on 28th February, 2018 (AN) as per the agreements
executed. A month’s notice was issued before end of
contractual services w.e.f. 28th January, 2018. But as the
CDMOs were in death of staff in their offices, opposite party
No.3 once again requested the Secretary, Health and Family
Welfare Department, Government of Odisha for extension
and it was accordingly extended by letter dated 17 th February,
2018 at Annexure-7 series.
4. The grounds of challenge to the action of the opposite
parties are as to following- (i) The petitioners had been
rendering services from 2014 but at the end of the contractual
period of one year, by letter dated 31st January, 2019 i.e.
Annexure-8, opposite party No.3 published one month notice
indicating therein that such service is to expire on 28th
February, 2019 (AN) and though discharging duties with
utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned, they were
relieved from service in view of Annexure-8; (ii) the DPAs
and the State Coordinator were not given their remuneration
from December, 2018 to 28th February, 2019; (iii) the Deputy
Director, Vital Statistics, Odisha & Deputy Chief Registrar of
Birth and Death by letter 25th April, 2017 submitted the
Page 6 of 22
justification and requirements of the posts of the DPAs.
Similarly, by letter dated 7th December, 2017, the Mission
Director, NRHM submitted the budgetary provision
necessary for remuneration of 32 DPAs. Besides the above,
opposite party No.3 moved opposite party No.1 by letter
dated 21st December, 2017 for continuance of the DPAs for
smooth functioning of the works. Even, the Additional
Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Odisha by letter dated 12th February, 2018
requested the Director, Health Intelligence and Vital
Statistics, Odisha for continuance of the services of the DPAs
for strengthening CRS for a further period of one year or till
posting of regular VS Clerks on the recommendation of
Odisha Staff Selection Commission whichever is earlier. The
above recommendations and requests for a budgetary
provision with extension of the contractual services of the
DPAs and copies thereof are at Annexure-9 series;
(iv)opposite party No.3 on 26th February, 2019 while
analyzing the requirements of the DPAs concluded that the
performance during period between 2014 and 2018 has
increased appreciably over the years and the contribution of
the State Coordinator and the DPAs cannot be ignored and
therefore, at that stage, their discontinuation may adversely
affect the programme and for the vacancies of 14 posts of the
DPAs and the State Coordinator from 2018, the percentage of
births and deaths registration and certification got reduced.
Similarly, the Director of Health Intelligence and Vital
Statistics, Odisha by letter dated 28th February, 2019
Page 7 of 22
elaborately described about the service of the DPAs and how
their jobs are essential in view of the workload of ORS work
(Births and Deaths Registration) in different districts of the
State and justified the need for a budgetary provision and
even requested for continuance of 18 posts of the DPAs to do
the work of CRS. That apart, opposite party No.3 by letter
dated 11th March, 2019 requested the Deputy Secretary to
Government, Health and Family Welfare, Odisha for
allocation of fund to make payments towards remuneration of
the DPAs for the period from 1st December, 2018 to 28th
February, 2019. Even some of the CDMOs requested
opposite party No.3 for continuance of the services of the
DPAs as all the posts of VS Clerks and SISA were lying
vacant under VS Section since 31st October, 2017.
5. When the opposite parties did not consider the grievance
of the petitioners in spite of the recommendations made,
W.P.(C) No.7447 of 2019 was filed before this Court
disposed of on 17th May, 2019 with a direction to the
authority concerned to consider continuance of 18 DPAs in
different districts to look after smooth management of Civil
Registration System within the stipulated period. According
to the petitioners, the above order was duly communicated to
the opposite parties. But opposite party No.1 rejected the
proposal of opposite party No.3 dated 28th February, 2019
without meeting all the points raised denying continuance of
the DPAs and passed the impugned order dated 22nd June,
2019 i.e. Annexure-13, which is, therefore, an arbitrary
action, illegal and also non est in the eyes of law.
Page 8 of 22
6. Gone through the impugned order at Annexure-13.
7. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed the counter affidavit and
it has been pleaded therein that the Joint Director (CRS),
Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India by letter No.3320 dated 2nd
September, 2013 requested the Directorate of Census
Operations, Odisha for Financial Assistance to the Chief
Registrar for hiring of manpower to strengthen the CRS in
the States as the registration of births and deaths has been
made compulsory. It is also pleaded that the Chief Registrars
of Birth and Death were allowed to hire the State
Coordinators and the DPAs in the offices of the Chief and
Additional Chief Registrar of Birth and Death for each of
their districts and at the level of the office of the Chief
Registrar, one State Coordinator with two DPAs. The copy of
said letter dated 2nd September, 2013 is at Annexure-A/3. It is
further pleaded that the Registrar General of India, New
Delhi suddenly stopped providing financial support in order
to meet the remuneration of the DPAs and State Coordinator
for the financial year 2017-18 and onwards with an
intimation by letter dated 14th March, 2017 at Annexure-B/3
that the fund necessary for the said purpose is to be borne by
the State Government. After careful consideration and in
view of sudden withdrawal of funding, opposite party No.1
took a sympathetic view of the matter and allowed
continuance of the DPAs with unspent funds available under
Odisha Health Systems Project (OHSP) and by letter dated
21st December, 2017 requested opposite party No.1 for such
Page 9 of 22
continuation of the services of the State Coordinator and the
DPAs for the year 2018-19, which was allowed and
communicated by Government’s letter dated 12th February,
2018.
7.1. It is also pleaded that no sanctioned posts of the DPAs
and State Coordinator are available under the administrative
control of the Health and Family Welfare Department,
Government of Odisha in order to make the budgetary
provision under the non-plan scheme as requested by
opposite party No.3 by letter dated 28th February, 2019
subsequent to the stoppage of fund flow from Government of
India. In absence of any such sanctioned posts,
discontinuation of the allotment of fund by the Registrar
General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India w.e.f. year 2017-18, the remuneration of the DPAs and
State Coordinator was temporarily made by the State
Government and it was an arrangement taking a sympathetic
view of the matter and as such, the services of the DPAs are
already over w.e.f. 28th February, 2019 as per the terms and
conditions of the agreements executed individually. Lastly, it
is pleaded that the petitioners have not been engaged against
regular vacant posts of the State Government on contractual
basis and therefore, cannot claim regularization after
completion of 6 years of service rendered by them and
therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard Ms. Panda and Mr. Patra, learned counsels for the
petitioners and Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State.
Page 10 of 22
9. Perused the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners to the
counter of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Such other affidavits
on record filed are also gone through.
10. Recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties. It is contended from the side of the
petitioners that a recruitment process was held pursuant to an
advertisement in the year 2013 and accordingly, the
petitioners joined as the DPAs. A contention is that the
petitioners continued the service for about five years, but
without regularizing their services, advertisements were
published in 2016, 2023 and 2024 for the posts of Vital
Statistics Assistant (VSAs). It is pleaded that posts of VSAs
were advertised to be filled up the same, however, this Court
by order dated 30th October, 2019 granted interim protection
to the petitioners therein with respect to the advertisement
dated 10th October, 2019 and after the State filed I.A.
No.12776 of 2020 for modification, by order dated 6 th
January, 2021, while dealing with the IAs, directed that the
appointment against the vacancies in question has been
permitted but with a condition that appointments of five
persons from the bottom of the list of selection shall remain
subject to result in the writ petitions and the letters of
appointment shall also indicate the aforesaid direction.
10.1. It is contended by Ms. Panda, learned counsel that the
plea of closure of the scheme is not true. It is further
submitted that the Registrar General of India intimated that
the requisite funding to support the exercise shall henceforth
Page 11 of 22
be contributed by the State Government and since the
advertisements were published in 2016 and 2023, it shows
that sanctioned posts and funds are available and therefore,
the State, being an ideal employer, should not deprive the
petitioners of their legitimate employment. It is also
contended that stoppage of funds and cessation of services of
DPAs being the reason is untenable when the employment of
the petitioners is very much necessary for the Health
Departments, Government of Odisha, for which, the
advertisements were issued to fill up the posts. The further
contention is that opposite party No.3 time and again
recommended and requested continuance of the petitioners
evident from Annexure-11 series to the writ petition stating
therein the vacancy position and the requirements of the
DPAs, but unfortunately, the counter is filed through him and
on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 justifying the
cessation of employment. Ms. Panda and Mr. Patra, learned
counsels for the petitioners unanimously submit that the State
Government made advertisements and hence, discontinuation
of the employment of the petitioners on any such ground as
to withdrawal of funding by the Government of India is not
fair and justified. The claim is that the petitioners were
recruited by a process of selection and their services could
have been regularized when posts were lying vacant. It is
submitted that the petitioners, having worked for five years,
with such experience at their disposal, have a legitimate right
to be regularized but the State published the advertisements
for fresh requirements instead of continuing with their
Page 12 of 22
services and absorption after each completing the contractual
term of 6 years and such non-consideration denying
regularization is violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. Ms. Panda, learned counsel cited a decision of the
Apex Court in Bhola Nath Vrs. The State of Jharkhand
and others 2026 INSC 99 in support of the contentions
advanced. It is contended that action of the State Government
is arbitrary in not allowing the petitioners to continue in
service and such decision is inconsistent with its obligation to
act as a model employer, which in view of the decision
(supra) as to be held as in derogation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
11. On the contrary, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State
submits that the petitioners joined in contractual service and
not against any sanctioned posts and therefore, they cannot
demand continuation beyond the period of contract and
furthermore, the Government of India stopped the fund,
hence, there has been cessation of service and hence,
opposite party No.1 did commit any wrong or illegality in
passing the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2019 as at
Annexure-13. Mr. Panda, learned ASC would further submit
that the petitioners cannot demand extension of contractual
service as they are governed by the terms and conditions of
the contract separately executed by them. Furthermore, the
regularization of the petitioners in service cannot be
conceived of since their appointments have not been made
against sanctioned posts. The contention is that the petitioner
Page 13 of 22
is well aware of their service conditions and despite stoppage
of fund received from the Government of India, they were
allowed to continue with a temporary arrangement made and
at last, the services were ceased w.e.f. 2019, which is in
accordance with the contractual terms and therefore, it cannot
be faulted with.
12. Admittedly, the engagement of the petitioners is
contractual and it was extended from time to time. For the
first time in 2017, notice was issued indicating cessation of
contractual engagement of the petitioners, but it was
extended till 31st January, 2019.Whether the petitioners could
have been allowed to continue as DPAs even after stoppage
of funds by Government of India? If at all, the petitioners can
claim continuation of services beyond the contractual period
and also demand regularization against the regular posts of
VSCs? According to Ms. Panda and Mr. Patra, learned
counsels for the petitioners, the vacancies were available to
accommodate the DPAs and it is also proved by the fact that
the advertisements were published by the Government to fill
up the regular posts. Referring to the recommendations as per
Annexure-11 series, the contention is that the petitioners
could be suitably retained and adjusted against the vacant
posts to look after the CRS work. Referring to Annexure-10,
it is claimed that the details of the information and
justification for the requirement of the DPAs and the State
Coordinator under the Director of Health Intelligence and
Vital Statistics were furnished to the Government and also
the achievements made between 2014-2018 and the decrease
Page 14 of 22
in the registration of births and deaths for the year 2018 due
to 14 DPAs and State Coordinator posts lying vacant. Mr.
Patra, learned counsel refers to the job assignment meant for
Junior Statistician/Statistical Investigator/Statistical Assistant
and VSCs (PH Wing) in the offices of the CDMOs to claim
that the nature of duty is to ensure timely collection,
compilation and submission of reports contending that the
posts of VSCs are lying vacant and as against the said posts,
the petitioners may be accommodated and furthermore when
there is no shortage of fund. Mr. Patra, learned counsel also
refers to a letter of the Government of Odisha, Health and
Family Welfare Department dated 24th August, 2020
addressed to the Chairman-cum-CEO, Odisha Computer
Application Centre OCAC, Bhubaneswar on extension of e-
Municipality birth and death module to rural areas (314
CHCS) of the State stating therein the estimated cost of the
project. The purpose of the submission, as according to Mr.
Patra, learned counsel is that fund is not an issue and also the
posts are available and therefore, it was wholly unjustified to
direct cessation of employment of the petitioners, whose
services should have been continued without break and when
the nature of their job as the DPAs is no different than the
VSCs and such other posts in view of the duty chart/job
assignments released by the Director, Public Health, Odisha.
13. The selection process has been held by an advertisement
as per Annexure-1. Admittedly, it has been contractual
appointment of the petitioners. Initially, the financial
assistance was provided by Government of India for hiring
Page 15 of 22
the State Coordinators and the DPAs in the offices of the
Chief District and Additional District Registrars. But the fund
was stopped with an intimation to the State Government to
meet the expenses on its own. Of course, the petitioner could
not have a right to insist upon continuation of their services
beyond the contractual period. But at the same time, whether,
it was really justified for the State to discontinue the services
of the petitioners on any such grounds pleaded on record.
Primarily, the cessation of employment of the petitioners
from 2019 and onwards is on the premise of stoppage of
funds by Government of India. Another plea is that the
petitioners cannot demand regularization since the initial
engagement has not been against any sanctioned posts. It is
also pleaded that the petitioners do not have a right to
demand continuation in service beyond the contractual period
in view of the terms and conditions of the agreements
executed with them. Whether in the presence set of facts, the
Government committed any illegality in disallowing the
petitioners to continue in service as the DPAs?
14. In Bhola Nath (supra), the Apex Court, in a case of
contractual appointment, in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, intervened and held
that the State was not right in not considering regularization
after having offered service for 10 years. In the case (supra),
the contractual appointees were allowed to continue against
sanctioned posts for long years but followed by an abrupt
disruption of engagement and concluded that such
discontinuance in service solely on the basis of contractual
Page 16 of 22
nomenclature without either recording cogent reasons or
passing a speaking order is manifestly arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is observed therein that
contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization having been appointed against sanctioned
posts cannot override constitutional guarantees and
furthermore acceptance of contractual terms does not amount
to waiver of fundamental rights. It has been held in the above
decision that the State has to act as model employer. It is also
concluded that the controversy was not one of mere
acquiescence or implied waiver of rights as therein the
petitioner was under contractual engagement. It is further
held therein that the State is saddled with heightened
obligation in discharge of its functions; a model employer is
expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour and
bears a social responsibility to treat its employees in a
manner that preserves their dignity; the State cannot be
permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of
their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining
position and therefore, as a necessary corollary, it is required
to exercise caution while discharging the role of an employer
and the constitutional mandate is a strict obligation to be
discharged with as a model employer from which no
exception can be approved of. In the above decision, the
engagements on contractual terms were against sanction
posts of Junior Engineers (Agriculture) with the engagement
being described from the inception as contractual in nature
and such engagement was extendable subject to satisfactory
Page 17 of 22
performance and against the aforesaid background, the Apex
Court referring to its earlier decision in Central Inland
Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vrs. Brojo Nath
Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 156 held that the
Constitution of India casts an obligation on the Courts to
advance social and economic justice and to give effect to the
equality mandate under Article 14 and in given
circumstances, it shall not hesitate to invalidate contracts or
any such clauses therein which are unfair or unreasonable
when entered into between the parties with unequal
bargaining power.
15. In the case at hand, it is pleaded by the opposite parties
that the initial appointments of the petitioners have not been
made against any sanctioned posts. Nevertheless, a selection
process has been followed with an advertisement and
engagement of the petitioners as the DPAs to look after the
CRS and fieldwork in rural and urban areas by placing their
services at the disposal of the Chief Registrar of Birth and
Death at the HQs. The claim of the petitioners is that fresh
advertisements have been made and that has proved the need
of manpower but they were sidelined and not considered
leading to the cessation of their services. The Government of
India stopped the funds to manage the CRS, whereafter, the
State Government instead of funding itself to the project took
a decision to bring an end to the contracts with the petitioners
and simultaneously, to go ahead to fill up posts of the VSCs
lying vacant. The plea of the petitioners is that after stoppage
of fund by the Government to India, the State Government
Page 18 of 22
should not have terminated their contractual engagement as
by then they had already served for five years as the DPAs
and when the requirement of manpower was clearly evident
in view of the recommendations made as per Annexure-11
series. No doubt, time and again, the concerned authorities
intimated the Government about the need for the contractual
engagement of the petitioners to continue to manage the
CRS. From impugned order at Annexure-3, it is made to
appear that the stoppage of funds and absence of regular
sanctioned posts to be the primary reason in considering
cessation of employment of the petitioners notwithstanding
flurry of recommendations received.
16. At the relevant point of time, regular posts of VSCs were
lying vacant but no sanctioned posts of DPAs and State
Coordinator. The petitioners were engaged as the DPAs. The
nomenclature of the posts held by the petitioners is different
but the claim is that the nature of work and duties are similar
to the VSCs. The aforesaid claim has nowhere been denied
by the opposite parties nor it has been dealt with by opposite
party No.1 while considering the grievances of the
petitioners. The fundamental reason for rejecting the request
of the petitioners is that they were not appointed against any
sanctioned posts and the engagement is purely temporary and
on contractual terms. To fill up the vacancies of posts of the
VACs, the advertisements were made. Referring to the duty
chart/job assignment released by the Director of Public
Health, Odisha submitted to the Court, it is claimed that the
nature of duty and the responsibility discharged by DPAs is
Page 19 of 22
no less different than the VSCs. Considering the huge
number of vacancies available by then, in the considered
view of the Court, the Government really had a viable option
to consider continuation of services of the petitioners
irrespective of the fact that their engagement was contractual.
Of course, the services of the petitioners are governed by the
terms and the conditions of the contracts executed by them
and extension of the same is a prerogative of the authority
concerned. In fact, opposite party No.3 made one of such
recommendations claiming that there is severe shortage of
manpower and therefore, the services of the petitioners
should be continued with the extension of their contractual
services and according to them, the irony is that in the
counter filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the
impugned action is justified with a diabolically opposite
stand being taken. It is alleged that opposite party No.3 made
the recommendation and justification to continue with the
services of the petitioners as the DPAs and also the State
Coordinator even after stoppage of fund by the Government
of India and on the other hand has supported the cessation of
their employment. It could well be that the requirement of
manpower prompted opposite party No.3 to submit such
recommendation, but after cessation of employment of the
petitioners to justify it though an approach looks quite
unusual but not difficult to decipher the reason behind. This
Court is alive to the fact that the petitioners had been engaged
on contractual basis but having regard to the fact that their
services continued for five years with extensions, the State
Page 20 of 22
Government having realized the need of the manpower
should have given an anxious consideration to the need of
their services as the DPAs to manage the CRS when the
nature of the duties is no dissimilar to the VSCs. The plea of
the petitioners for accommodating them against the regular
posts of VSCs though debatable should have been explored.
Even though there has been no regular recruitment typically
conducted for a Government post but an interview having
been held with a selection process adopted, it shall have to be
held that such selection is not illegal and at best be held as
irregular in view of the settled position of law laid down by
the Apex Court originated from the decision in Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and
others (2006) 4 SCC 1. This Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the State to create posts
to accommodate the petitioners. But having regarding to the
fact that the petitioners were under contractual appointment
and the posts held by them are similar to the job assignment
of VSCs, the State Government should freshly consider their
claim with a decision followed dealing with all such pleas put
forth.
17. Accordingly, it is ordered.
18. In the result, the writ petitions stand disposed with a
direction to opposite party No.1 to comply the direction as
aforesaid considering the grievances of the petitioners on a
proper perspective followed by orders at the earliest
Page 21 of 22
preferably within a period of eight weeks forthwith
communicating them the decision thereon. As a logical
sequitur, the impugned decision by orders dated 22nd June,
2019 as at Annexure-13 is hereby set aside. It is further
directed that opposite party No.1 shall take a decision on all
such pleas of the petitioners independently without being
influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. It is
further directed that the writ petition and the affidavits filed
herein and the grounds pleaded therein shall be considered by
opposite party No.1 while taking a decision vis-Ã -vis
grievances of the petitioners and their plea as to
accommodating them against the regular posts of the VSCs
for the similar nature of duties discharged and performed as
the DPAs keeping in view the position of law.
19. Interim order(s) shall remain in force till a final decision
of opposite party No.1 within the above stipulated period.
20. No order as to the costs.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CTC
Date: 21-Jul-2026 19:57:17
Page 22 of 22
