Why court rebuked Odisha government for dumping elephant conservation researchers after 10-year service

The high court directed the Odisha government to examine the proposal for the creation of posts and the regularisation of the petitioners within eight weeks.

Court relies on SC judgments

• The high court extensively relied upon recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly Jaggo v Union of India and Shripal v Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, which criticised exploitative long-term contractual employment practices.
• The court reproduced portions from the Supreme Court’s observations warning against the misuse of temporary employment labels to deny workers dignity, job security and employment benefits despite performing perennial work.
• The high court also referred to the Supreme Court’s clarification in the Umadevi line of judgments, observing that the ruling cannot be used by governments “as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ad hocism.”
• Justice Pattanaik observed that prolonged continuation of workers in contractual positions followed by abrupt disengagement could amount to unfair and arbitrary treatment.

Researchers appointed under elephant conservation programme

The petitioners were appointed as research fellows in 2009 under the Elephant Management Action Plan of the Forest and Environment Department after a public advertisement and selection process.

According to court records, the recruitment was conducted for wildlife research and elephant corridor management in different forest circles of Odisha. The candidates were required to possess postgraduate qualifications in Wildlife Biology, Zoology or Life Sciences along with relevant experience.

The petitioners argued that after joining service in August 2009, they continuously worked under the Wildlife Organisation for almost 10 years with periodic extensions granted by the authorities.

Their remuneration was also revised over the years from Rs 10,000 per month initially to Rs 12,000 in 2014, Rs 15,000 in 2016 and eventually Rs 28,000 per month.

The petitioners told the court that their work was not temporary in nature because wildlife conservation and elephant management were continuing responsibilities of the state government.

Wildlife board recommended regularisation

The petitioners further argued that the State Wildlife Board had, as early as 2011, recommended creation of posts and regularisation of 11 research fellows engaged under the wildlife organisation.

According to the plea, the principal chief conservator of forests and chief wildlife warden had also moved the government for creation of regular posts and continuation of services.

However, despite the proposal remaining pending, the government issued a fresh advertisement in July 2019 inviting applications for junior research fellows, GIS analysts and data analysts on contractual basis under the same ‘Elephant Management Action Plan’.

The petitioners alleged that the fresh recruitment process was effectively aimed at replacing one set of contractual employees with another despite their satisfactory service record.

They also claimed that after serving continuously for nearly 10 years, many of them had crossed the upper age limit for fresh government recruitment elsewhere.

State says appointments were purely contractual

• Opposing the petitions, the Odisha government contended that the appointments were temporary, scheme-based and contractual in nature.
• The state argued that the appointment letters clearly mentioned that the engagement could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and that the employees would not acquire any right to claim regular government employment.
• The government further submitted that the last contractual extension granted to the petitioners expired on March 31, 2019.
• According to the state, the finance department had observed that junior research fellows should not continue beyond five years and suggested recruitment of fresh candidates instead.
• The government also argued that no sanctioned posts had formally been created for the petitioners and therefore regularisation could not be claimed as a matter of right.

Court questions decision to replace existing employees

• Justice Pattanaik, however, found significant merit in the petitioners’ grievance.
• The court observed that the petitioners were not “illegal appointees” or backdoor entrants since they had been selected through a transparent process after public advertisement and interviews.
• The bench also noted that the state itself continued extending their services for nearly a decade, indicating the continuing need for their work.
• The court pointed out that the government had attempted to recruit fresh contractual employees for substantially the same work through the 2019 advertisement.
• It is nowhere pleaded that the nature of work as research fellows has ceased to exist, the court said.
• It questioned why experienced research fellows were disengaged only to be replaced through another contractual recruitment exercise for identical work.

Govt told to take decision in 8 weeks

While the high court stopped short of directly ordering regularisation, it directed the Odisha government to seriously consider the proposal submitted by the State Wildlife Board regarding creation of posts and regularisation of the petitioners.

The court said that wildlife conservation and elephant habitat management are long-term responsibilities requiring continuity and expertise.

Disposing of the writ petitions, the court directed the state authorities to take a decision preferably within eight weeks from receipt of the judgment.