Jyoti Ranjan Satapathy vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12695 Ori

                                        1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         RVWPET (RPC) No. 44 of 2016

Jyoti Ranjan Satapathy            .....                                       Petitioner
                                                         Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
                                  Vs.
State of Odisha and others        .....                                Opposite parties
                                             Mr. B. Mohanty, Standing Counsel for
                                                  School & Mass Education Deptt.
            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                             ORDER

10.12.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.

3. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 3638 (C) of 2014.

4. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that this question has already been decided by this Court in the case of Satyabrata Nayak and Ors V. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 902 of 2016 and batch of matters disposed of on 15.09.2021, where this Court has held that the draft reject list, so far as the petitioners in the said case is concerned, cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same was quashed. The opposite parties were also directed to take into consideration the applications filed by the petitioners therein and allow them to participate in the process of selection and also to consider their cases for engagement as Contract Teacher (Hindi) by re-drawing the select list and extend them all the benefits in accordance with law, within a period of three months

from the date of communication of the judgment. While passing the said order, this Court has observed that if untrained candidates can have right to make application and subsequently they can undergo required training within the timeline as prescribed by the Government, submission of their applications even as untrained candidates, cannot be said to be faulted with. In view of such position the application filed by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 18.11.2014 cannot be rejected, rather this should have been taken into consideration and the petitioners should have been allowed to participate in the process of selection.

5. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for the State does not dispute such position. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed by this Court in Satyabrata Nayak (supra) has not been challenged in the higher forum.

6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since the order passed by this Court in Satyabrata Nayak (supra) has not been assailed, the ratio decided in the said case is fully applicable to the present case.

7. Thus, this review petition is disposed of in terms of the observation/ direction given in the case of Satyabrata Nayak (supra).

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

Alok                                      (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                JUDGE