IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. Nos. 327 of 2025, 2315 of 2024, 237 of 2025, 240 of 2025, 270 of 2025, 289 of 2025, 290 of 2025, 291 of 2025, 405 of 2025, 457 of 2025, 736 of 2025, 750 of 2025, 790 of 2025, 799 of 2025, 802 of 2025, 803 of 2025, 816 of 2025, 822 of 2025, 824 of 2025, 825 of 2025, 826 of 2025, 827 of 2025, 828 of 2025, 840 of 2025 & 848 of 2025 State of Odisha and another (In all) …. Appellants Mr. S. B. Mohanty, AGA -versus- Sabila Firdosh and Ors. Saubhagya Manjari Samantara & Ors. (In W.A. No. 327 of 2025) (In W.A. No. 2315 of 2024) Madhusmita Mahalik & Ors. (In W.A. No. 237 of 2025) Saroja Kumar Bhatta & Ors. (In W.A. No. 240 of 2025) Biswanath Das & Ors. (In W.A. No. 270 of 2025) Madhusmita Ray & Ors. (In W.A. No. 289 of 2025) Banishree Mahala & Ors. (In W.A. No. 290 of 2025) Ramakanta Bharati & Ors. (In W.A. No. 291 of 2025) Swati Mohanty & Ors. (In W.A. No. 405 of 2025) Pratibha Swain & Ors. (In W.A. No. 457 of 2025) Binita Dash & Ors. (In W.A. No. 736 of 2025) Debaswapna Mishra & Ors. (In W.A. No. 750 of 2025) Dr. Rashmi Ranjan Patra & Anr. (In W.A. No. 790 of 2025) Abhumanyu Dash & Ors. (In W.A. No. 799 of 2025) Sonali Das and Ors. (In W.A. No. 802 of 2025) Tanuja Panda & Ors. (In W.A. No. 803 of 2025) Sarita Mohanty & Ors. (In W.A. No. 816 of 2025) Sucharita Balabantray & Ors. (In W.A. No. 822 of 2025) Ambuja Behera & Ors. (In W.A. No. 824 of 2025) Radhanath Hota & Ors. (In W.A. No. 825 of 2025) Surya Narayan Rath & Ors. (In W.A. No. 826 of 2025) Pratap Keshari Pattanaik & Ors. (In W.A. No. 827 of 2025) Sukanta Kumar Pradhan & Ors. (In W.A. No. 828 of 2025) Subhadra Mishra & Ors. (In W.A. No. 840 of 2025) Niranjan Badu & Ors. (In W.A. No. 848 of 2025) Respondents Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER Order No. 12.05.2026 06. W.A. Nos. 327 of 2025, 2315 of 2024, 237 of 2025, 240 of 2025, 270 of 2025, 289 of 2025, 290 of 2025, 291 of 2025, 405 of 2025, 457 of 2025, 736 of 2025, 750 of 2025, 790 of 2025, 799 of 2025, 802 of 2025, 803 of 2025, 816 of 2025, 822 of 2025, 824 of 2025, 825 of 2025, 826 of 2025, 827 of 2025, 828 of 2025, 840 of 2025 & 848 of 2025 and I.A. Nos.842 of 2025, 6126 of 2024, 645 of 2025, 659 of 2025, 695 of 2025, 739 of 2025, 742 of 2025, 734 of 2025, 855 of 2025, 833 of 2025, 1966 of 2025, 1969 of 2025, 1963 of 2025, 1977 of 2025, 1983 of 2025, 1987 of 2025, 1998 of 2025, 2013 of 2025, 1993 of 2025, 2005 of 2025, 2019 of 2025, 2022 of 2025, 2008 of 2025, 2051 of 2025 & 2045 of 2025 All these Appeals seek to call in question a slew of orders made by the learned Single Judge by substantially favouring the subject Writ Petitions keeping in view the order made in W.P.(C) No.8489 of 2023 disposed off on 19.10.2023. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that all the petitioners were engaged as Asst. Professor in different discipline of the University pursuant to the advertisement issued by the University on different occasion. This Court finds that in the said advertisement so issued by the University at different point of time, it was clearly indicated that the posts in question are under the self financing scheme for MCA course. It is also indicated in the advertisement that all the posts are on consolidated pay basis and on contract basis for a period of three (3) years. Even though it is found from the record that all the Petitioners since on the same date of joining are continuing against those posts are not on regular basis and engagement of the Petitioners has been extended from time to time with usual break in service. Since it is found that the Petitioners are all continuing under the self financing scheme, though for different period extending upto 23 years in the case of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18013 of 2015, but since no such material was produced before this Court with regard to the right of the petitioners to get the benefit of regularization, in view of their long continuance against any sanctioned post, this Court is unable to issue any positive direction to the University to regularize the services of the Petitioner placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra). 5.1. 5.1. However, considering the fact that all the Petitioners are continuing as Asst. Professor for more than 10 year and one of them is continuing under the Scheme starting from 15.03.1999 onwards, this Court while disposing the batch of Writ Petitions, directs the University to frame a scheme to consider the case of the Petitioners for their regularization in services. It is directed that the University shall frame such a scheme within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and send the same for its approval to the Government in Agriculture Deptt. within the aforesaid time period. It is further the afore period. directed that on receipt of the proposal /scheme from the University, Government in Agriculture Deptt. shall take a lawful decision on the same taking into account the long continuance of the Petitioners. Such a decision with regard to according approval of the scheme e scheme be taken by the Government in the Department of Agriculture within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of the same from the University. On receipt of such approval from the Government, if any, University shall take appropriate steps to regularize the services of the Petitioners in a time bound manner. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 2. The State has filed independent applications supported by affidavits seeking condonation of delay in preferring these Appeals. No objections are filed to the said applications as yet, except in W.A. No.327 of 2025 wherein the delay is 382 days. The varying lengths of delay are not that unreasonable and there being some plausible explanation for the same, the applications are favoured and delay is condoned. 3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the Appeals inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has only directed the University to frame a broad policy scheme for regulating the claim for regularization of services of these contractual teachers and non-teaching staff. Further a direction is given to the University to submit the scheme for approval of the State Government in its discretion. There is no direction to the State Government, which is the Appellant here, that it is bound to approve the scheme whatever be its policy contents. Apparently, discretion is left to the Government since it is a matter of policy, inter alia, having financial implications. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Employees draws our attention to the letter dated 10.04.2024, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A/1 to the Petition whereby University has already promulgated a scheme and submitted it to the Government for consideration. He rightly tells us that merely dismissing the Appeals would not do justice to his clients and therefore the Government should be directed to consider the subject scheme as to whether it merits approval. In the above circumstances, these Appeals fail coupled with a direction to the Appellants-State to take a call on the draft scheme submitted by the University providing for the guidelines in terms of which the claims for regularization have to be processed. Time for compliance is three months. All contentions are kept open. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan/Priyanka Designation: Senior Stenographer