Orissa High Court Denies Regularization for Contractual Employee, Citing Non-Compliance with Reservation Policy, Transparent Selection Procedures, and Violation of Government Guidelines

Court’s Decision: The Orissa High Court upheld the Health & Family Welfare Department’s decision, rejecting the petitioner’s regularization plea. The court agreed with the department’s stance that the petitioner’s initial contractual appointment lacked transparency and adherence to the state guidelines on recruitment, particularly regarding the application of reservation and merit-based selection.

Facts:

The petitioner applied for a contractual position as a Multi-Purpose Health Worker (Male) in 2005, meeting the educational qualifications stipulated in the advertisement. Despite securing higher marks than other selected candidates, he was not appointed initially and subsequently appealed to the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. Following a directive, he received a contractual appointment in 2010 and has continued in service since. The petitioner later sought regularization of his position after completing six years of service, per the state’s policy on regularizing contractual employees.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner’s appointment and service fulfillment qualify him for regularization.
2. Whether the lack of adherence to transparent selection procedures and reservation guidelines bars his eligibility for regularization.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that his appointment was based on merit and his educational qualifications aligned with the position’s requirements. He contended that any lack of adherence to reservation norms or transparency was not his fault but an administrative oversight. He cited precedent cases asserting that contractual employees fulfilling all conditions for regularization should not be denied this benefit due to procedural lapses on the authority’s part.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The state countered that the petitioner’s appointment did not follow the transparent and merit-based selection procedures mandated for public posts, as stipulated in the General Administration Department’s 2013 and 2014 resolutions. The lack of adherence to reservation guidelines in his case, combined with the lack of a transparent process, disqualified him from regularization.

Analysis of the Law:

The General Administration Department’s 2013 resolution mandates that contractual employees must meet strict conditions for regularization, including the observance of reservation policies and transparent selection processes. The department’s guidelines stress the importance of a uniform, rule-based recruitment for contractual employees to qualify for regularization.

Precedent Analysis:

The petitioner cited Vikash Prasad Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Bikash Mahalik v. State of Odisha, where courts provided relief to contractual employees due to prolonged service without regularization. However, the respondents highlighted that these cases involved distinct circumstances and that procedural lapses here, including deviations from reservation and transparency norms, justified denial of regularization.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court found merit in the respondents’ position that transparent selection procedures and adherence to the ORV Act’s reservation policy are non-negotiable requirements for regularizing contractual employees. The court determined that the petitioner’s initial appointment, conducted without following these essential procedures, was an administrative error and not a basis for regularization.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the Health and Family Welfare Department’s decision to deny the petitioner’s request for regularization, underscoring that the failure to follow established recruitment and reservation guidelines precluded the petitioner from regularizing his position.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces the necessity of transparent and merit-based recruitment procedures for government appointments, even for contractual roles. It clarifies that procedural lapses by appointing authorities do not entitle contractual employees to regularization, emphasizing the state’s commitment to fair and equitable hiring practices.

Also Read – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir Dismisses Benami Suit as Time-Barred, Upholds Rejection of Plaint for Deficient Pleadings Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC