Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3658 Ori
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2021
WP(C) No. 26965 of 2011
13. 16.03.2021 The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical mode).
Heard Ms. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. G.Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr B.P. Das, learned counsel for opposite party no.1;
Mr. S.Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass
Education Department appearing for opposite parties no.2, 3
and 4; and Mr. H.P. Rath, learned counsel for opposite party
no.5.
The sole contention of Ms. S.Pattnaik, learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed against
the vacancy created on account of termination of opposite
party no.5 and the tribunal has decided the matter without the
petitioner being impleaded as a party, hence the order passed
by the tribunal is not legal.
Mr. H.P. Rath, learned counsel for opposite party no.5
rely upon judgment of this Court in Garuda Adabar v. State
of Orissa, 1997 (II) OLR 521 and that of the apex Court in
Poonam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 2 SCC 779
contending that it cannot be regarded as a binding precedent
for the proposition that in case of removal or dismissal or
termination, a subsequently appointed employee is a
necessary party. Therefore, the claim made in the writ
application cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Ms. S.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
time to examine the above proposition of law.
Call this matter next week.
...............................
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE GDS
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!