IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26770 of 2017 Himanshu Bhusan Maharana & others …. Petitioners Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Panda, ASC Mr. R.N. Patnaik, Advocate for O.P. No.14 Ms. Samapika Mishra, Advocate for O.P. Nos.11 & 18 Mr. D.K. Pani, Advocate for O.P. Nos.9& 16 Mr. T.K. Praharaj, Advocate for O.P. Nos.10 & 20 CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING: 13.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.06.2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking regularization of their services in terms of the Notification dated 17th January, 2014 read with Resolution dated 15th February, 2014 of Government of Odisha in General Administration Department as at Annexure-9 series having completed six years of service and to direct the opposite parties to release the time Scale of Pay with Grade Pay and DA besides other allowances on and from the date of such completion of the stipulated period with consequential benefits, treating them as regular Assistant Project Directors (APDs) redesignated as Programme Managers (PMs) on the grounds stated. AFR 2. The Government of Odisha in Department of Panchayati Raj decided to fill up the posts of APDs in various DRDAs on contractual basis and accordingly published an advertisement stating therein the eligibility criteria for such engagement. As against advertisement i.e. Annexure-2 series and other DRDAs, applications were invited and ultimately the petitioners were shortlisted and a provisional list post-wise was published by the DRDAs and thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee verified the documents, certificates etc. and at last, a final merit list was prepared. Since, the petitioners fulfill the requisite criteria and were within the age limit and possessed essential qualification, hence, called for verification of original documents at the DRDAs. After the above exercise was over, the petitioners were appointed as against the posts on contractual basis with a remuneration of Rs.12,500/- per month. At the time of appointments, the petitioners signed the agreement with the DRDAs. On expiry of a year, a fresh agreement was executed with the petitioners. It is pleaded on record that the petitioners satisfactorily performed upon such appointments. The copies of the agreements executed between petitioner No.1 and the DRDAs on 10th December, 2010 and 1st March, 2017 are at Annexure-5 series. The similar agreements were executed by other petitioners and as a result, the contractual engagement was extended. It is claimed that the petitioners though have qualifications as per the requirements and have continuously worked for more than six years on contractual basis. In view of the Notification and Resolution at Annexure-9 series, the petitioners, who hold the post of APDs and born into Group-B service on satisfactory completion of six years of contractual term, shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed with formal appointment letters issued in their favour leading to regularization. 2.1. Under Resolution dated 15th November, 2014 as at Annexure-10, the post of APDs has been re-designated as Programme Managers in order to ensure that they discharge their responsibilities expected in the restructured Schemes. It is also pleaded that in view of the Government’s Letters dated 1st August, 2011 and 20th November, 2014 at Annexure-11 series, there is no difference in the work of contractual and regular APDs. It is claimed that the petitioners have been appointed against regular vacant posts, though named as contractual and the job chart goes to show that the contractual and regular APDs shoulder the same responsibilities and therefore, their appointments should be treated as regular. 2.2. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vrs. Jagjit Singh and others in Civil Appeal No.213 of 2013 any such continuation of contractual service for long time amounts to exploitation, hence, it has to be discontinued with regular appointments given to the petitioners. In so far as one of the conditions of the agreements is that no one shall claim service benefits as admissible to the State Government employees, it is contrary to law. Since the petitioners possess requisites qualification and have been selected on merit and appointed against regular vacancies, though on contractual basis in different DRDAs and fresh agreements have been executed with them every time on expiry of the tenure upon satisfactory completion of six years of services rendered by them, a case is made out for regularization in terms of Rule 16(a) of the Orissa Group-B Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 (shortly as ‘the Rules’). 2.3. In the meanwhile, the functions of the DRDAs have been merged with Zilla Parishads by abolishing them by the decision of the Government in Panchayati Raj and D.W. Department vide Resolution dated 3rd June, 2022 at Annexure-12 and as a result, the petitioners were engaged therein as Programme Managers with creation of 150 posts as against the abolished posts of APDs. Having been allowed to continue even after merger with Zilla Parishad and since the petitioners in the meantime completed six years of service and have become Programme Managers, they are eligible to be absorbed regularly leaving the remaining posts to be filled up by direct recruitment. As per Clause 5 of the Government’s Resolution i.e. Annexure-12. In as much as, Clause 17 thereof is inapplicable to them. With the above pleading on record, the petitioners demand regularization in accordance with the Rules. 2.4. On the contrary, such regularization is opposed by the State and referring to the counter affidavit filed through opposite party No.1, it is pleaded that the engagement is temporary and for a definite period and purpose and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any such regularization against Group-B posts in terms of the Rules. It is pleaded that the petitioners filed the writ petition by not disclosing all the relevant facts with regard to their appointments as against the respective DRDAs. 3. That apart, Annexure-1 is not meant for appointment of APD (Finance) as the guidelines therein meant for engagement of APD (Scheme), APD (Credit) and APD (Training) in different DRDAs and in the case at hand, three of the petitioners have joined in the posts of APD (Finance) and all of them, as per the terms and conditions of the agreements under Annexure-5 series, undertook not to claim any service benefits as per the State Government Employees and therefore, at present cannot be allowed to turn back and demand regularization as they are bound by the contract. 3.1. In so far as the Rules at Annexure-9 is concerned, it is not applicable to the DRDAs, which are registered under the Societies Registration Act. As per the Rules-3 (3) of the Rules, it is further pleaded that the Rules are not applicable to temporary Plan Schemes in as much as the Resolution dated 15th February, 2014 of the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha relates to appointments made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of the Finance Department with or without abolition of corresponding regular posts. It is pleaded that the rules and resolution relied on and referred to are in no way relate to the DRDAs, whereas, the petitioners’ services are entirely covered under the Odisha District Rural Development Agencies Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Regulation, 1989 and also guided by the advertisement i.e. Annexure-2 series besides the agreements duly signed by them with the DRDAs and in so far as merger and redesignation of the posts as Programme Managers is concerned, it has not created any right in their favour to claim regularization. 3.2. As to the decision in Jagjit Singh (supra), it is pleaded that there is pay protection of the petitioners even though temporarily engaged are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale extended to the regular employees holding the same posts. Since they are being paid Rs.25,000/- a month with effect from February, 2018 against the pay scale of regular Group-B posts of Rs.13,500/- (Basic Pay Rs.9300/- and Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-), which is in consonance with the decision (supra). 4. It is finally pleaded that the petitioners are to abide by the agreements and the terms and conditions therein and therefore, cannot resile from it and claim regularization or conferment of any such right to be appointed against Government posts. It is reiterated that the Rules are not applicable to the DRDAs registered under the Societies Registration Act and since the petitioners have been engaged on a purely contractual basis to manage the day to day works of the agency and in the meantime, considering the cost of living, their remuneration was increased, which is more than the minimum pay scale allowed to the regular employees holding the same, they are not entitled to any such relief. More so, when their service conditions are governed by the Regulations and under the above circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. A separate counter is filed by the opposite party No.10 and the same is gone through. It is pleaded therein that the engagement of the petitioners is on a contractual basis as per the Guidelines of the State Government issued from time to time and furthermore, their engagements have been subject to the conditions of the agreement executed by them with the DRDAs. It is pleaded further that the petitioners received contractual consolidated remuneration enhanced from Rs.12,500/- to Rs.25,000/- a month with effect from 1st February, 2018 with an annual rise at the rate of 3% of the remuneration, subject to satisfactory performance in view of the decision of the Government by the Resolutions dated 12th September, 2016 and 5th February, 2018 as at Annexure-A/10 and B/10 respectively, whereby, they are not being deprived of the financial benefits. 6. It is not that all the petitioners have worked for more than six years continuously, whereas, petitioner No.14 had a break between 2nd September, 2017 and 13th September, 2017 due to her leave and similarly, petitioner No.19 except for the period from 24th October, 2015 to 10th February, 2016, during which he was disengaged for being in judicial custody in connection with Tarava P.S. Case No.194 dated 23rd October, 2015 but re-engaged with effect from 11th February, 2016 pursuant to Annexure-C/10. 6.1. The petitioners do not come within the purview of the Rules and that apart, it is related to the existing contractual employees in Pay Band-2 with pay of Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- carrying a Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- in respect of Group-B posts. That apart, the selection of the petitioners as contractual APDs is purely on a merit basis, according to the weightage assigned against marks scored by them in HSC, Graduation and essential qualification and as such is not covered under the Recruitment Rules for Group-B posts. 7. Gone through the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners to the counter of opposite party Nos.1 to 14 as per the Regulations issued by the Government vide Annexure-13, the DRDAs is a permanent establishment continued for 30 years and therefore, the petitioners, having worked in such an establishment plead for regularization after completion of six years of service like the regular employees. It is reiterated that as per the Rules 16(a) of the Rules, the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed against regular posts having completed six years of contractual service. That apart, registration of the DRDAs as Societies under the Societies Registration Act is not relevant and the selection has taken place with the creation of posts by the Government followed by an advertisement stipulating therein the academic qualification for the posts in question. It is pleaded that the selection has been made in pursuance of the Government’s order and it has been followed by revision to the monthly consolidated remuneration enhanced with the approval of the Government upon receiving the concurrence of the Finance Department in view of the Government Resolution dated 12th September, 2016 and Annual Establishment Review Reports as at Annexure-14 series. 8. In compliance of the directions by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16194 of 2012, the DRDA JEEs (Scheme) have been regularized by a decision of the Government in Panchayati Raj Department at Annexure-15 and as regards Rule-3 (3) of the Regulation, it is in the nature of Executive Instructions not valid in view of the Rules, which is statutory. Nevertheless, the Regulation stipulates that the Orissa Service Code and Rules/Circulars of the Government issued from time to time after apply to the service conditions of the employees of the DRDAs in relation to pay, DA, CPF, Gratuity etc. and therefore, under the above circumstances, the petitioners are eligible to be absorbed against the regular posts of the Programme Managers created by the Government after the merger of the DRDAs with Zilla Parishads. 9. Heard Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State, Mr. Pani, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.9 and 16, Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.10 and 20, Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.11 and 18 and Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No.14. 10. Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for in view of the Apex Court’s decision in Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar and others dated 13th March, 2015 in Civil Appeal No.2835 of 2015 arising out of SLP(C) No.20169 of 2013. It is contended that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized having worked for more than a decade on contractual basis. A decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vrs. Shyam Kumar Yadav and another in SLP (C) No.25609 of 2018 dated 22nd July, 2024 is cited by Dr. Lenka, learned counsel to claim that the petitioners’ services deserve regularization allowing them all the benefits including arrear pay. The decision in Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and others in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 dated 20th December, 2024 is placed reliance on by Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that there is lack of a social security for the petitioners and their families and such contractual engagement for a long period is a practice that not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment as held and observed therein. The decision in Shripal and another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024 is also referred to besides Dharam Singh and others Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2025 INSC 998 to further contend that a case for regularization of the petitioners is made out. The following decisions, namely, Nihal Singh and others Vrs. State of Punjab and others in Civil Appeal No. 1059 of 2005 dated 7th August, 2013; State of Odisha and another Vrs. Arun Kumar Nath and others in W.A. No.408 of 2025 dated 18th June, 2025 of this Court besides Om Prakash Banerjee Vrs. State of West Bengal and others in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2023 dated 19th May, 2023 and A.N. Pathak and others Vrs. Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence and another 1987 (Supp.) SCC 763 are referred to by Dr. Lenka, learned counsel to contend that the petitioners are eligible for regularization having served against contractual posts for more than ten years and upon completion of six years of service as necessary in view of Annexure-9 claiming that the writ petition filed by them deserves to be allowed, which is also maintainable since the cause of action on the facts and relief sought for are common. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State reiterates that the petitioners worked under the DRDAs subsequently allowed to continue in suitable posts after its merger with the Zilla Parishads and such engagement has been under a Scheme and on contractual terms and therefore, any such demand for regularization is misconceived. Recorded the submissions of learned counsels for the other opposite parties. Page 12 of 23 12. In Amarkant Rai (supra), the Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1; State of Karnataka and others Vrs. M.L. Kesari and others (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Nihal Singh and others Vrs. State of Punjab & others (2013) 14 SCC 65 directed that the services of the appellants therein be regularized notionally and retrospectively or from the date on which the posts become vacant, whichever is later without any monthly benefits for the above period, but payable from a future date fixed. 13. In Dharam Singh (Supra), the Apex Court while considering regularization of contractual employees held and observed as to the following: “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder: “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records- despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. xxx 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” xxx 13.As we have observed in both in Jaggo and Shripal (supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not ‘full-time’ employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.” 14. Having regard to the long undisputed service and admitted perennial nature of duties of the appellants therein, the Apex Court in the decisions (supra) considering the materials indicating vacancies and regulations issued directions with observations extracted hereinbelow: “20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 15. Referring to the decision in Jaggo (supra), this Court in Arun Kumar Nath (supra) concluded as such: “34. The cumulative effect of the judgments as referred to above leaves no ambiguity that labelling the appointment as temporary or contractual is not a determinant factor but the nature of the duties and the jobs and perennity of the service which is indispensable should also be borne in mind. Admittedly, the writ petitioners/respondents are still discharging their duties as Gardener as such duties are indispensable in the Department of Horticulture and are continuing at present as well. The appointment was made upon following the due procedure of law as revealed from the letter of the Director of Horticulture while seeking formal order of their regularization and the pleadings filed by the appellants before the writ Court is conspicuously silent thereupon. 35. It is incongruous to suggest that the specific stipulation of denial of guarantee in the matter of employment destroys the right of regularization despite the fact that after successful completion of the training a bond is required to be executed in the prescribed form that they would serve the Department for three years with the adverse consequence of refund of the stipend on failure thereof. The clause so relied upon by the appellants has to be read as a whole and not in a piecemeal. Apart from the same, several notifications issued by the G.A. Department in the year 2013 and 2014 conveys a laudable message that the contractual employees may come in a regular employment after completion of six years of service which has been interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in Patitapaban Dutta Dash (supra).” 15.1. In the above decision, this Court has taken judicial notice of the decision in Umadevi (3) and Jaggo (supra) and concluded that the petitioners therein should be treated equally and cannot be discriminated against, despite any such specific stipulation in the bond executed by them with a conclusion that such a condition in the matter of employment defeats the right of regularization confirming view expressed earlier in Patitapaban Dutta Dash Vrs. State of Odisha & others 2023 Vol. I ILR Cuttack 906. 16. In the instant case, the petitioners joined in DRDAs after a selection process. Admittedly, no regular competitive recruitment has taken place normally held in respect of Government posts. The manner in which the selection is held is revealed from Annexure-1. Such selection is pursuant to a list that was prepared district-wise with post- wise provisional merit list released with weightages assigned against marks scored by the candidates in their HSC, Graduation etc. The details of the exercise undertaken in the selection after scrutiny of applications received from the candidates are revealed from Annexure-1. A verification has been done at the DRDAs level by a Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Collector and the CEO of DRDA comprising of Project Director, DRDA, Additional PD (Administration) and any other officials as decided by the Collector. The eligibility criteria of the candidates to be appointed as APDs have also been stipulated therein with the time-line fixed to complete the exercise from the date of advertisement till joining. 17. The question is, whether, the manner in which, the selection has been carried out in terms of Annexure-1 is a ground to oppose regularization of the petitioners with a plea that it has not been accomplished like a regular recruitment process, which is one of the conditions necessarily to be complied with. There is no doubt that the petitioners did have the requisite qualification, hence, were picked up and selected as APDs. It is not denied by the State that any of the petitioners is having no qualifications for the posts held. It has also not been denied that the functions of the APDs are no similar to those regular employees. The objection to the regularization is that no regular recruitment process has been held in respect of the petitioners. By Govt.’s Resolution as per Annexure-10, the posts held by the petitioners were redesignated with the job chart duly approved by the Government. In the year 2022 while the petitioners were continuing in service, the Government vide Annexure-12 with a resolution merged the DRDAs with the Zilla Parishads and abolished the posts of APDs with the creation of 150 posts of PMs. Against the newly created posts, the petitioners were allowed to continue in Zilla Parishads under the administrative control of Panchayati Raj Department. The above facts are not in dispute either. Such a decision by the Government was to continue with the petitioners in Zilla Parishads against the posts created in terms of Annexure-18 vide letter dated 30th July, 2022 of the Panchayati Raj Department directing all the Collectors-cum-CEOs of Zilla Parishads to go ahead with the existing terms and conditions and consolidated remunerations and considering the aforesaid facts, the Court is to examine whether the petitioners are to be regularized in terms of the Rules. 18. Nevertheless, the petitioners joined in the DRDAs with a selection held in the manner prescribed in the advertisement at Annexure-1. Such an advertisement has been floated by the DRDAs only upon the approval of the Government. Though a regular recruitment process has not been held but selection of the petitioners cannot be termed as illegal. The selection process when received approval of the Government, to claim that the petitioners are not eligible for regularization since a recruitment process was not held normally followed in respect of the Government posts, this Court, in view of the decisions in Jaggo and Dharam Singh (Supra) with reference to Uma Devi (3) is inclined to hold that it is to be treated as irregular but not illegal. By no means, the selection process can be branded as illegal. It is not that the petitioners joined in DRDAs by a backdoor entry. A selection has been held in accordance with the advertisement and it has been conducted by the DRDAs with the approval of the Government. So to allege that the selection is illegal and therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for regularization is unacceptable. 19. Of course, one cannot claim regularization being a contractual employee in DRDAs merely on the ground of having served for more than 10 years. In other words, there is no inherent right to claim absorption merely considering the length of services rendered in exceeding ten years as it does not create legal rights to be observed into a permanent regular post. The Apex Court in Uma Devi (3) (supra) explicitly prevents State Governments from bypassing regular recruitment processes to make ad hoc or contractual employees permanent. Admittedly, the DRDAs were the societies registered under the Societies Registration Act unlike the Government Departments and subsequently, merged into Zilla Parishads and according to the Court, for that the regularization of the petitioners should not be denied. In the humble view of the Court, being the employees of the DRDAs, the petitioners, having continued with the Zilla Parishads with the merger having taken place by a decision of the Government, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. In fact, the DRDAs having merged with the Zilla Parishads have become an integral organ of the State. The Zilla Parishad is a local Authority and functions as the top tier at the district level of a Panchayati Raj System exercising Governmental and Administrative powers. Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the term ‘State’ has a broad definition and it encompasses not just the State Government Departments but also the local Authorities like Municipalities, Zilla Parishads etc. Even if the DRDAs had engaged the petitioners, but in view of the fact that it merged with the Zilla Parishads in the year 2022 and the petitioners having been allowed to perform the functions of PMs as against the newly created 150 posts, in the fitness of things, their services deserve to be regularized. The Court is alive to the fact that the law has evolved in the meantime and therefore, taking into account the decision in Jaggo & Shripal (supra), hence, the services of the petitioners are required to be regularized since they have been in service since 2010 and further continuation on contractual terms does not guarantee them the security in life and career. 20. Accordingly, it is ordered. 21. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid to be complied with by opposite party No.1 at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, by undertaking necessary exercise to ensure regularization of the petitioners working under the respective Zilla Parishads. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram