Date From Which Regularization Is Granted Is Decided By Employer, Employee Can't Claim It Without Any Basis: Orrisa High Court

Brief Facts:

The matter pertained to the employment status of the Petitioner, who was appointed as a Science Teacher (CBZ) on a contractual basis at the Subarnarekha Irrigation Project Composite High School, managed by the Government in the Water Resources Department. The school was established to educate the children of project employees and was recognized by the Education Department and the Board of Secondary Education. Initially appointed on a contract basis on July 29, 1995, the Petitioner continued in the position despite efforts for regular recruitment.

The Petitioner sought regularization of their service and benefits equivalent to a regular Trained Graduate Teacher. Despite initial reluctance by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal to issue directives for regularization due to the school's potential closure, a subsequent court judgment directed authorities to consider regularization, considering the petitioner's ten-plus years of service. Consequently, the department granted the Petitioner the regular pay scale from August 2, 2005, modified to January 31, 2002. The Petitioner approached the Orrisa High Court ('High Court”).

The Petitioner raised the demand for regularization from the date of his initial appointment, July 29, 1995, arguing that the posts were duly sanctioned, and his appointment on a contractual basis was illegal.

Conversely, the department argued that the Petitioner's regularization should commence from the date of the Tribunal's judgment, August 2, 2005, as neither the Tribunal nor the court specified an earlier date.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court noted that the engagement of the Petitioner as a Science Teacher was on a contractual basis, along with another individual as a Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) without undergoing any formal selection process. It noted that the Petitioner's appointment did not follow a proper recruitment procedure, and there was no evidence to suggest that the Petitioner was selected through a formal process. Despite a subsequent request by the department to the Collector to sponsor suitable candidates selected by the Selection Committee for the vacant posts, the Petitioner's engagement on contractual terms lacked procedural regularity.

Further, the High Court held that adherence to due recruitment processes is a fundamental aspect of lawful appointments. It states unequivocally that the law does not sanction the direct appointment of individuals to sanctioned posts without undergoing appropriate recruitment procedures. Although the Petitioner's appointment initially lacked legal compliance, the High Court acknowledged that the authorities, in compliance with a previous court directive, have since regularized the Petitioner's services, effective from the date of the Tribunal's order.

However, the High Court held that the Petitioner's plea for regularization from the date of his initial appointment lacked merit. It held that the date from which regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view several factors such as the nature of the work, the number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition the of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made etc. (referred to Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Ajmer and another vs. Chiggan Lal and others).

Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Jawaharlal Mohanta vs State of Odisha & others

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.20977 of 2010

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.Satyajit Behera

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. A.R.Dash

Click Here To Read/Download Order or Judgment