The High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed by the State challenging the Odisha Administrative Tribunal's order denying regularization with consequential benefits to untrained Sikshya Karmis. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the Tribunal's record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) NOS.12143 AND 14144 OF 2017
18.07.2017
Heard learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department on behalf of the petit
ioners.
2. W.P.(C) No.12143 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioners-State challenging the order
dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.963 of
2012.
3. Similarly W.P.(C) No.12144 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioners-State challenging
the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A.
No.964 of 2012.
4. Since common questions of law are involved in both the Writ Petitions, the same are he
ard together and disposed of by this common order.
5. Earlier the applicants have approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.462 of 2007 challenging
the order of rejection passed by the Government regarding regularization of their service. Th
e Tribunal by order dated 03.02.2011 disposed of the Original Application with the following d
irection:-
Considering the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties that since Govern
ment has brought out their order dated 08.02.2000, so also dated 04.04.2000 relating to regula
rization of Sikshya Karmis requiring them to complete training qualification and pursuant to t
hat office order / resolution the applicants were sent for training and they came back after a
cquiring such training qualification and similarly situated persons like the
applicants have been favoured with order of regularization of their services as regula
r Primary School teacher and the applicants prayer for such benefit has been rejected by respo
ndent no.1, we are of the considered view that the said order in respect of the applicants is
not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is quashed. Respondent authorities were directe
d to issue appropriate appointment order in favour of the applicants against the post of Prima
ry School Teacher as early as practicable in accordance with Government orders dated 08.02.200
0 and 04.04.2000. The exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date
of communication of this order.
As no action was taken, the applicants filed Contempt Petitions before the Tribunal. While the
Contempt Petitions were sub judice, the applicants were issued with the order of appointment.
The applicants were treated in all respect as Asst. Teaches of Level-V of Elementary Cadre w.
e.f. 24.11.2011. The applicants got such appointment after lapse of 11 years, as the authoriti
es did not implement the policy decision of the Government. The applicants were allowed to get
benefit of appointment against the regular post by recognizing their past service. However, a
s similarly situated persons, who were untrained and later on got appointment during 2000 to 2
003 and the case of the applicants was not considered by the petitioners resulting to belated
appointment order, they have approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Applications. T
he applicants also claimed for consequential service benefits
including arrears and their service is to be counted for the
purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.
6. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the mater
ials available on record came to the conclusion that the applicants are liable to be appointed
on regular basis from the date they completed their training course successfully and to be re
gularized notionally. As the appointment of regularization will be on notional basis from the
date of regularization of their services from the date of completion of training course as set
tled earlier in O.J.C. No.6602 of 2001 and the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.462 of
2007 directing the authorities to act upon the resolutions dated 08.02.2000 and dated 04.04.20
00. The arrears as well as other financial benefits cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the Tribun
al by the impugned order disposed of the Original Applications.
7. The Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and there is no error apparent on the face of
the record. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of the j
urisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
S.N.Prasad, J.
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Odisha Administrative Tribunal's decision dismissing the applicants' claim for regularization and consequential service benefits under Article 227 of t
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State
Odisha Administrative Tribunal
Government
S.N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court