HC disposes of plea against outsourcing of JTP posts | Bhubaneswar News
Cuttack: A division bench of Orissa high court on Friday declined to interfere with an interim order of a single judge on a dispute raised over outsourcing of Jagannath temple police (JTP) posts.
Narasingha Suar, a resident of Puri, filed the petition after the state govt issued an advertisement on Feb 27 indicating outsourcing of 75 JTP posts.
Acting on it, the single judge issued notices to the state govt on March 5 and “as an interim measure” directed that any appointment made in the meantime shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
While the single judge scheduled the petition for hearing in the week commencing April 7, Suar filed an appeal against the interim order.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing on Friday, advocate Jaydip Pal, appearing on Suar’s behalf, stated that the state govt had imposed a complete embargo on outsourcing any service in Jagannath Temple and even Regulation 29 of Shree Jagannath Temple (Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1967, does not contemplate outsourcing.
However, advocate general Pitambar Acharya took a specific stand that in order to facilitate the effective management and administration, the decision was taken to outsource the services of JTP by appointing persons on a casual and temporary basis.
Acharya further submitted that there is no impediment as the outsourcing is not perennial in nature and, therefore, the contention in the appeal is not correct.
Taking the submissions on record, the division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice B P Routray said, “The advocate general is very categorical in his submission and conveys the laudable intention of the govt that such engagement is purely contractual in nature and does not create any inchoate right into the persons so engaged and, therefore, such restrictions, which was initially there, does not appear to have been pressed in action at this juncture.”
“Furthermore, since the single bench has clearly observed that any appointment and/or engagement made pursuant to the said advertisement dated Feb 27, 2025 shall be subject to the final outcome of the said writ petition, therefore, we do not find any justification in interfering with the impugned order at this stage,” the bench said, while disposing of the appeal.
Narasingha Suar, a resident of Puri, filed the petition after the state govt issued an advertisement on Feb 27 indicating outsourcing of 75 JTP posts.
Acting on it, the single judge issued notices to the state govt on March 5 and “as an interim measure” directed that any appointment made in the meantime shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
While the single judge scheduled the petition for hearing in the week commencing April 7, Suar filed an appeal against the interim order.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing on Friday, advocate Jaydip Pal, appearing on Suar’s behalf, stated that the state govt had imposed a complete embargo on outsourcing any service in Jagannath Temple and even Regulation 29 of Shree Jagannath Temple (Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1967, does not contemplate outsourcing.
However, advocate general Pitambar Acharya took a specific stand that in order to facilitate the effective management and administration, the decision was taken to outsource the services of JTP by appointing persons on a casual and temporary basis.
Acharya further submitted that there is no impediment as the outsourcing is not perennial in nature and, therefore, the contention in the appeal is not correct.
Taking the submissions on record, the division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice B P Routray said, “The advocate general is very categorical in his submission and conveys the laudable intention of the govt that such engagement is purely contractual in nature and does not create any inchoate right into the persons so engaged and, therefore, such restrictions, which was initially there, does not appear to have been pressed in action at this juncture.”
“Furthermore, since the single bench has clearly observed that any appointment and/or engagement made pursuant to the said advertisement dated Feb 27, 2025 shall be subject to the final outcome of the said writ petition, therefore, we do not find any justification in interfering with the impugned order at this stage,” the bench said, while disposing of the appeal.
