Disposed

Deepesh Ku.Biswal v. State

Orissa HC7 Sept 2021WP(C)/21108/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the termination of Assistant Environmental Engineers. The Court found the appointment regular but directed the State Government to decide on regularization within 31 days, maintaining interim status quo pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be allowed to continue in posts till date and State Government directed to take a decision on regularization of services of petitioners by 31st December 2021 in accordance with

Deepesh Ku.Biswal Vs State — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPC No. 21108 OF 2014

¶3

Deepesh Kumar Biswal & others …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Pattaniak, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. P.K. Pattanaik, Advocate - Versus - State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties

¶4

Mr. A.K. Sharma, Addl. Government Advocate Mr. B. Dash, Advocate, (O.Ps No.2 & 3)

¶5

Order No. 17

¶6

CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER_
07.09.2021
WPC No. 21108 of 2014,
WPC No.20204 of 2014,
WPC No.20664 of 2014
&
WPC No. 22179 of 2014
1. These matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

¶7

Heard Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, learned Senior counsel appearing along with Mr. P.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014; Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 20204 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 20664 of 2014; Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 22179 of 2014; Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Addl.

¶8

Page 1 of 6

¶9

Government Advocate for opposite party no.1; and Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 and 3- State Pollution Control Board.

¶10

Since the reliefs sought in all the writ petitions are similar, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order, which will govern all the cases. 4. In W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014 prayer has been made to quash the resolution dated 09.10.2014 of the 109^th Board meeting under Annexure-15 and to issue direction to opposite parties not to terminate the services of the petitioners appointed as Asst. Environmental Engineers under Annexure-7 series. Whereas W.P.(C) No. 20204 of 2014 has been filed seeking to quash the letter dated 13.05.2014 under Annexure-5 communicated by opposite party no.1 and to issue direction to opposite parties to allow the petitioners to continue in their respective posts. Since reliefs sought in other two writ petitions are identical, there is no necessity to indicate the same specifically.

¶11

As it reveals, pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.05.2012 issued by opposite party no.3, the petitioners, having requisite qualification, applied for the post of Assistant Environmental Engineer and by following due procedure of selection, they have been appointed in their respective posts and continuing as such till date. But all on a sudden, it was decided by the Government that the appointments of the petitioners are irregular and unlawful, thereby, steps were taken for termination of their services. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the above writ petitions.

¶12

Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 20204 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 20664 of 2014 contended that in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section-3(A) of Section-12 of Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974, the recruitment rule was framed by the State Pollution Control Board, namely, “The Recruitment Conditions of Service of Employees of the State Pollution Control Board,

¶13

Page 2 of 6

¶14

Orissa Regulation, 2011” to regulate the methods and conditions of service of the officers and employees of the State Pollution Control Board. It is stated that as provided under Rules 16, 17 and 18, selection process has been done and the petitioners have been duly selected and appointed and their appointment was also ratified by the Board and therefore, a right has accrued in their favour, as they are continuing in their respective posts in consonance with the provisions of law. But all on a sudden, steps have been taken vide letter dated 13.05.2014 to remove the petitioners from service at the behest of the State Government. As such, the State has no such authority to issue any direction with regard to recruitment and termination of services of the employees of the Pollution Control Board. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited V. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427.

¶15

Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014 also endorsed the arguments made by Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20204 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 20664 of 2014. So is also the contention of Mr. A.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22179.

¶16

Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State, referring to the counter affidavit filed on 18.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014, contended that since there were irregularities in recruitment process of Assistant Environment Engineer, when the same was brought to notice of the Government, following 2 nos. of notices for calling attention motion in the Orissa Legislative Assembly, instructions were sought from the State Pollution Control Board, which enquired into the matter and submitted a report for consideration and appropriate follow up action in respect of so called irregularities committed by the State Pollution Control Board in the

¶17

Page 3 of 6

¶18

matter of recruitment to the post of Assistant Environment Engineers. Accordingly, the Government approval was taken to suggest the Board to bring the report to the notice of the Chairman, State Pollution Control Board for consideration and appropriate follow up action. It was also decided to advise the Board to take action to amend the State Pollution Control Board rules and regulations appropriately so that the scope of recurrence of such irregularities in future may be avoided. It is also further contended that so far as amendment of rules is concerned, State has also approved, but so far as regularization of services of the petitioners is concerned, since the matter is subjudice before this Court, no decision has yet been taken.

¶19

Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for State Pollution Control Board contended that pursuant to advertisement and by following due procedure of selection as per prevailing rules, the petitioners were selected and appointed and they are discharging their duties from the date of their joining. But on the basis some allegation, the State Government has taken steps directing the State Pollution Control Board for removal of the petitioners, thereby, action has been taken in consonance with the letter issued on 13.05.2014, which has been challenged before this Court. But now the Government, as a matter of principle, has decided to approve the amendment rules. So far as regularization of the services of the petitioner is concerned, since the matter is subjudice before this Court, the Government will take steps in accordance with law.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioners have been appointed by following due procedure of selection in accordance with the rules, i.e. The Recruitment Conditions of Service of Employees of the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa Regulation 2011 and they are continuing in service. At the behest of the Government, pursuant to letter

¶21

Page 4 of 6

¶22

dated 13.05.2014, when steps were taken for removing them from service, they have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. Considering the nature of grievance made by the petitioners, this Court has passed interim order of status quo on 07.11.2014 allowing the petitioners to continue in their posts and by virtue of the same the petitioners are continuing in their respective posts till date. As it reveals, the State Government took steps on the allegation of some persons, which had been questioned in the State Assembly. On that basis, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately report was submitted by the State Pollution Control Board, on receipt of which, the State Government decided to amend the rules of the State Pollution Control Board. 11. In paragraph-8 of the Counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.1 on 18.06.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 21108 of 2014, it has been stated as follows:

¶23

“ That it is humbly submitted that in the year 2018, the Government of Odisha in Forest & Environment Department in its letter No. 17255/ F & E, dated 6.8.2018 has written a letter to the Member Secretary, SPCB requesting the Chairman SPCB for consideration and appropriate follow up action and to take necessary action to amend the rules and regulations of SPCB appropriately to avoid recurrence of such irregularities in future and give a proposal for regularization for alleged irregular appointment of other Assistance Environment Engineers to this Department and pursuance to aforesaid letter the SPCB has written a letter to Government vide letter No. 12213 dtd.10.10.2018 requesting to please communicate the decision of the Govt. regarding regularization of services in respect of 14 (fourteen) numbers Assistance Environmental Engineers and 3 (three) numbers of Assistance Environmental Scientists who have joined in the year 2013 from the merit list prepared in the year 2012, After receipt of the above reply from the SPCB, the Government approved the proposal of SPCB regarding amendment of provision under Regulation-18 (3). Regarding irregular recruitees, the decision in the matter is pending for taking further decision, as the matter is subjudice.”

¶24

In view of the candid statement made in the counter affidavit, it apparent that the Government, as a matter of principle, has decided to approve the amendment of the rules. So far as regularization of the services of the

¶25

Page 5 of 6

¶26

petitioners is concerned, no decision has been taken as the matter is subjudice before this Court. Thereby, this Court disposes of all the writ petitions directing the State Government to take a decision on the regularization of services of the petitioners in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 31^st of December, 2021 and till then interim order passed by this Court shall operate.

¶27

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶28

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶29

( Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge

¶30

A.K. Rana

¶31

Page 6 of 6

Deepesh Ku.Biswal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepesh Ku.Biswal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijaya Nanda Behera Vs Ajit Kumar

Anada Ch.Sahoo Vs M.D.M/S.Orissa Minin

Birendra Prasad Shaw Vs Union of India

Nehrulal Potel Vs State of Orissa

Pravakar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Tankadhar Naik Vs State of Odisha