Sanjeet Kumar Bagh vs. The Comn. CT. And GST, Odisha

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is similarly situated to Petitioner No. 9, Uma Sankar Mohapatra, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021. The Court noted that Uma Sankar Mohapatra was engaged by facing an advertisement on the office notice board followed by an interview, and the instruction provided by the Revenue indicated that the present petitioner's engagement was also similar. Since the order passed in the case of Uma Sankar Mohapatra and others (W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021) was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Court found that the present petitioner, being similarly situated, is eligible and entitled to the benefit of that order. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated August 7, 2021, in so far as it related to the petitioner, and disposed of the Writ Petition in light of the judgment dated August 16, 2024, in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjeet Kumar Bagh, was appointed as a contractual Driver in 2011. After extensions, he sought regularization of his service. His initial writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 22689 of 2020) directing regularization was set aside by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 79 of 2021, which permitted petitioners to represent for regularization based on Supreme Court judgments. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha (Opposite Party No. 1) on August 7, 2021, citing non-compliance with recruitment procedures and reservation rules. Subsequently, 11 similarly situated individuals filed W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, which was allowed, quashing the rejection order and directing consideration for regularization. This order was upheld by a Writ Appeal and the Supreme Court via SLP dismissal. The petitioner argues he is similarly situated to those in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's claim for regularization of service is covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, considering the petitioner was engaged without a formal recruitment process and adherence to reservation principles, as argued by the Revenue. 2. Whether the petitioner, being similarly situated to Petitioner No. 9 (Uma Sankar Mohapatra) in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, is entitled to the same relief of regularization, as argued by the Petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contends that his engagement is similar to that of Petitioner No. 9 in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021, who was also engaged without a formal recruitment process but was granted regularization. Since the order in that case was upheld by the Supreme Court, the petitioner claims he is similarly situated and entitled to the same benefit, requiring the quashing of the impugned rejection order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argues that the petitioner's initial engagement was without following the proper recruitment procedure and the principle of reservation, as per the G.A. Department Resolution of 2013-14. They contend that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24545 of 2021 are not similarly situated to the present petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected.