Sandeep Ranjan Mishra And Ors vs State Of Odisha And Others Vs

Harish Tandon, CJ.

These three writ appeals are taken up together as the common question is involved therein. The seminal points raised in these writ appeals by Mr. Routray, learned Senior counsel representing the appellants that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of extraneous factors and does not confine within the folds of the pleadings and the reliefs claimed in the writ petitions.

The writ petitions were taken out by the appellants claiming their rights under the Odisha Group-B Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 and the clarificatory resolution of 2014 whereby and whereunder the contractual appointment made prior in time shall be deemed to have been regularized at a pay band indicated therein. Though a conscious decision was taken that all the substantive posts shall be filled up on the basis of the contractual appointments but the clarificatory resolution subsequently made allegedly confers the right into such contractual appointees, which was the foundation of the reliefs claimed in the said writ petitions.

The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the writ petitioner aimed to achieve the relief of regularization of their contractual services and further proceeded to rely upon the Constitution Bench decision of the apex Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and a subsequent two-Judge Bench decision of the apex Court rendered in case of State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and others reported in AIR 2010 (SC) 2585.

Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State fairly submits that the relief claimed in the writ petitions, does not pertain to regularization of the contractual appointment but continuance in such capacity despite the subsequent conscious decision having taken by the State in desisting from continuing with such contractual appointment. He further submits that during the currency of the writ petitions, the advertisement which was impugned therein was withdrawn by the Government upon taking a conscious decision and, therefore, the writ petitions in fact become infructuous.

The point in our opinion emerged from the stand of the respective parties is whether the petitioners can claim any indefeasible right on the basis of the Rules, 2013 and the clarificatory resolution issued in the year 2014 to continue as contractual appointees despite such rules having repealed subsequently.

In course of the hearing, we further find a factual dispute in relation to continuance in discharging the duties and such factual dispute ought to have been decided on the basis of the materials available on the record.

It is no longer res integra that the Court cannot make out new case for the parties when the parties neither pleaded nor sought relief in this regard. The determination must be confined to the pleadings and the reliefs and transgression beyond the same is not encouraged. The Court cannot perceive a thing which does not germane from the pleadings nor can travel on the peripheral of an omnibus prayer made in the writ petition and recast the relief suo motu in disposing of the proceedings.

It was nobody’s case that the petitioners had prayed for regularization of such contractual services and, therefore, the manner in which the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dispose the writ petitions perceiving the reliefs in the form of regularization of such contractual service is not only de horse the pleading but beyond the reliefs claimed therein. Solely on the ground that the learned Single Judge has made out a new case for the parties and there is no findings returned on the core issue involved in the writ petitions, we could not persuade ourselves to concur with the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge.

The order of the learned Single Judge is thus set aside. The writ petitions are restored to its original file and number. The writ petitions are remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide afresh on merit strictly within the four corners of the pleadings and the reliefs claimed.

Since we did not invite the parties to exchange affidavits nor we venture to enter into the merit of the case, any observations, accidentally or incidentally touching upon the merit, shall not have any persuasive effect at the time of deciding the writ petitions.

The writ appeals are thus disposed of.

... ....………………………….