Dismissed

Dasarathi Nayak v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC4 Mar 2024WP(C)/17525/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, engaged ad hoc as a driver by the Collector in 1998 without following Article 16 procedure, sought regularization relying on parity with later appointees whose services were regularized. The High Court found no right to regularization and upheld the Tribunal's direction for contractual appointment.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dasarathi Nayak Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17525 of 2011

¶2

Dasarathi Nayak ….. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate

¶3

Vs.

¶4

State of Odisha & others

¶5

….. Opposite Parties

¶6

Mr. M.K. Khuntia, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶10

ORDER

¶11

04.03.2024

¶12

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed an order dated 08.11.2010 passed in O.A. No.1620 of 2002 by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the petitioner’s application with a direction to the opposite party No.1 to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment against a post of driver on contractual basis as soon as the Collector’s proposal in this regard was approved by the Finance Department.

¶14

Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have directed for regularizing the petitioner’s appointment against the post of driver instead of directing his appointment on contractual basis. He submits that services of such persons who were appointed after the engagement of the petitioner by the Collector have been regularized and giving due regard to the principle of parity, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed for

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

regularizing the petitioner’s engagement.

¶17

We have carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other material available on record. We notice that the petitioner’s initial engagement as driver on ad hoc basis was made in the year 1998 by the Collector based on the representation made by him to the Collector. No procedure at all was followed in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, in our considered view, cannot claim regularization of service by way of right. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order directed the opposite parties to engage the petitioner on contractual basis. We do not find any such illegality in the impugned order as would require this Court’s interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this case.

¶18

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
MRS/Laxmikant
(M.S. Raman)
Judge

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 05-Mar-2024 18:48:01

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Dasarathi Nayak v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dasarathi Nayak v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anantaram Mohapatra Vs Management,B.S.Co.

Brajasundar Dash Vs State

Ganeswar Nanda Vs Mahanadi Coal Field

M/S.Visa Steel Ltd. Vs Shalinder Sharma

Dhananjaya Pradhan Vs Hemanta Sharma, Principal Secy. to Govt., Industries Dept.

Runi Bhoi Vs the Govt. of Odisha