Padu Paraja vs. The Comnr. Of 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's engagement involved facing an advertisement and an interview, and found the present petitioner's engagement to be similar. Since the order in the case of Uma Sankar Mohapatra and others was upheld by the Apex Court, the Court concluded that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the same benefit. Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.08.2021, rejecting the petitioner's claim, was quashed. The Writ Petition was disposed of in light of the judgment dated 16.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021, directing the Opposite Parties to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization.

Facts

The petitioner, Padu Paraja, was appointed as a contractual Driver in 2009 and continued with extensions. He, along with others, sought regularization of service. Initially, a writ petition led to a direction for regularization, but this was set aside by a Writ Appeal, allowing petitioners to represent their claims. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Commissioner of CT and GST, Odisha, on August 7, 2021, citing non-compliance with recruitment procedures and reservation principles. Eleven of these petitioners filed another writ petition, which was allowed, directing consideration for regularization. This order was upheld by a Writ Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition. The petitioner argues he is similarly situated to those whose claims were allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 07.08.2021, rejecting the petitioner's representation for regularization of service, is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's engagement as a contractual Driver and subsequent continuation with extensions, and in light of previous judicial pronouncements. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of regularization and administrative action). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner contends that his claim for regularization should be allowed, as he is similarly situated to other petitioners in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021, whose regularization claims were upheld by this Court, a Writ Appeal, and the Supreme Court. He argues that the rejection order is contrary to established legal principles and the directions in previous judgments, including those in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari. Revenue/State's contention: The Opposite Parties contend that the impugned order is justified because the petitioner's initial engagement was without following proper recruitment procedures and the principle of reservation, as per ORV Rules. They argue that the petitioner is not similarly situated to those in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021, as their engagement processes differed.