2 23.03.2021 Heard Sri Sahu vs Advocate For The State
2021 Latest Caselaw 4021 Ori

           W.P.(           C.M.P.
                             W.P.(C).
                                  No.1360
                                      No.10189
                                          of 2015
                                               of 2021




2   23.03.2021         Heard Sri Sahu,       learned counsel appearing for the
                   petitioner and Sri H.M.Dhal, learned Additional Government
                   Advocate for the State.
                        Looking to the reason of rejection of the case of the
                    petitioner for Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment vide
                    Annexrue-12 and getting into reference of the document at
                    page-34 of the brief, a part of Annexure-8 involving earlier
                    rejection of the request of the petitioner, this Court finds
                    even though the case of the petitioner is rejected but
                    however at the same time the case of one Prakash Ch.
                    Nayak also rejected earlier. In the meantime in a
                    development pursuant to disposal of W.P.(C).No. 6271 of
                    2019     involving Prakash Chandra Nayak, this Court by
                    judgment dated 05.03.2021 has come to held that there is
                    no bar in taking into consideration the provision under OCS
                    (RA) Rules, 1990. In this situation there is no dispute for
                    providing employment to the elder son in spite of existence
                    of the spouse as the spouse is not interested for job. It is in
                    this view of the matter, this Court, therefore,      finds the
                    principle decided in the case of Prakash Chandra Nayak in
                    W.P.(C).No.6271 of 2021 decided on 05.03.2021 squarely
                    applies to the case of the petitioner involved herein.
                        Sri Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate
                    opposes the move of the petitioner on the premises that for
                    the previous development involving the petitioner for the
                    rejection of a writ petition appears to be a suppression of
                    fact at the instance of the petitioner and the writ petition
                    ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. Sri Dhal,
                    learned Additional Government Advocate however did not
                    dispute to the proposition of law decided by this Court
                             -2-




      involving similarly situated person in the list under
      Annexure-8 through W.P.(C). No.6271 of 2021.
              In this view of the matter, this Court finds the reasons
      in   Annexure-12       is not sustainable for which this Court
      interfering in the order at Annexure-12 sets aside the same
      and directs the opposite party nos.1 to 4            to provide
      employment       to    the   petitioner   under   Rehabilitation
      Assistance Appointment Scheme by issuing appointment
      order     looking to the educational qualification of the
      petitioner by issuing appointment order in favour of the
      petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of
      communication of certified copy of this order by the
      petitioner.



                                                         .
                                         BISWANATH RATH,J.

sks