Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19253 of 2026 Prabhat Martha ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Samir Kumar Mishra, (Sr. Adv.) -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 01.07.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opposite Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the advertisement dtd. 09.03.2026 under Annexure- 7 to the extent of affecting the petitioner be quashed and consequently the opposite parties be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation within a time bound period; And further be pleased to pass such further Page 2 of 6. order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Jr. Clerk in Godavaris Mahavidyalaya, Banpur by the Principal of the College on temporary basis w.e.f. 28.06.2011. Pursuant to which the Petitioner joined in service on 01.07.2011. He further contended that after his initial appointment on temporary basis the Petitioner was allowed to continue in service on such temporary basis. While this was the position, the Deputy Director (NCENT) directed the Principals for submitting vacancy position of non-teaching staffs in all Non- Government Aided Colleges vide its letter dated 04.01.2020, 29.07.2022 & 13.01.2023 respectively. Pursuant to such request of the Deputy Director (NCENT) the Principal submitted the information regarding the sanction strength of non-teaching staff including the post of Jr. Clerk. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while this was the position, the Petitioner, along with other non- teaching staff, submitted a representation before the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Odisha with a prayer for regularization of their service as they have been working on temporary basis for almost a decade in exchange of a meagre payment since the representation was filed on 25.11.2024 at Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He further submitted that although a specific prayer has been made with regard to the regularization of the service of the Petitioner and similarly situated persons who have been working on temporary basis for a long time, the Opposite Party Page 3 of 6. No.1 did not take any final decision with regard to the regularization of service of the Petitioner. 6. He further contended that in the meantime the Regional Director, Regional Directorate of Education, Bhubaneswar issued a letter dated 03.12.2025 requesting the Principal to again furnish the information regarding vacancy of non-teaching staff. Accordingly, the Principal of the college in question submitted such information indicating therein that five posts of non-teaching staff are lying vacant against which persons have been working on temporary basis, including the present Petitioner. Upon getting such information from the colleges, the Higher Education Department, Government of Odisha, on 09.03.2026, has published an advertisement No.01/2026 inviting applications to fill up the post of Jr. Clerk in Non-Govt. Aided Colleges. Being aggrieved by such publication of advertisement, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. While assailing the impugned advertisement under Annexure- 7 to the writ petition dated 09.03.2026, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended before this Court that although the Petitioner has been working on temporary basis for almost a decade on being engaged by the Principal of the institution, however, the service of the Petitioner has not been regularized as of now. He further contended that although the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.1 vide his representation dated 25.11.2024 under Annexure-4, no final decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended before this Court that in the event the posts are filled up, the Petitioner will be left hanging despite Page 4 of 6. working for ten years in exchange of meagre salary. With regard to the regularization of the service of the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India & others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka – v.- Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as in State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Keshari and others reported in 2010(II) OLR (SC) 982 and in the case of Sripal and another V. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad decided on 31st January, 2025 in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the advertisement published by the Opposite Parties at Annexure-7 be quashed and a further direction be given to the Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioner against the post of Jr. Clerk of the College in question. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that he has no specific instruction in the matter. He further contended that such appointment was made with a break of one day between two appointments. In the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the State contended that no right has accrued in favour of the Petitioner to continue in service and that there is no provision to regularize the service of the Petitioner who has been appointed by the Principal without following due selection procedure. He further contended that while adhering to the regular selection procedure the Opposite Parties have published advertisement at Annexure-7 to select the most eligible person for the non-teaching post which are lying vacant in the college in question. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in publishing the advertisement at Annexure-7. In such Page 5 of 6. view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court is of the prima facie view that the Petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis and the same is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner continued in service with a single day’s delay between two appointments. Moreover, it cannot be disputed that the Petitioner was continuing for a long period against the post of Jr. Assistant, which is a non- teaching post. On a careful examination of the impugned advertisement at Annexure-7, this Court found that there exist regular vacant posts in the college in question which are required to be filled up by the authority, by following the selection procedure. However, it is not known as to why such posts are lying vacant for such a long time and the Petitioner was allowed to continue for such a long time on temporary basis. The law with regard to regularization of service is no more interest res integra and the same has been clearly laid down in several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has been working for ten years, albeit with a break of one day in between two appointments, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at this stage by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to first consider the representation of the Petitioner at Annexure-4. The prayer of the Petitioner for regularization of his service be Page 6 of 6. considered keeping in view the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Such decision with regard to the regularization of service of the Petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. It is further directed that let the selection pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-7 continue, however, one post of Jr. Assistant in the Godavaris Mahavidyalaya, Banpur shall be filled up only after finalization of the prayer of the Petitioner as involved in his representation dated 25.11.2024. It is further made clear that in the event the Opposite Parties accept the prayer of the Petitioner for regularization of his service, the Petitioner’s case be consider for appointment against such post of Jr. Assistant. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is not eligible for such regularization, then the Opposite Parties shall proceed to give appointment against the post of Jr. Assistant pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure- 7. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout