Orissa High Court
Padmanava Pradhan & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 7 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17637 of 2020
Padmanava Pradhan & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. J.Ku. Rath,
Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. S. Ghose,
Additional Standing Counsel for the O.P.1
Mr. S.Ku. Purohit,
Advocate for the O.Ps.2 & 3
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
07.10.2021
Order No.
05. 1. From the submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties, this Court gathers the following:
Basing on the advertisement under Annexure-20 coupled
with Annexure-21 the Petitioners apprehended that in the process of
such selection the benefit of regularization granted in favour of the
Petitioner through disposal of the W.P.(C) No.18298 of 2014 vide
Annexure-18 might be lost. The writ petition was thus filed
particularly in an attempt to see that the Petitioners who have been
directed to be regularized should not be affected, in the event the
establishment continues with the advertisement. Pending
consideration of the writ petition additional documents have been
brought to the notice of this Court by way of amendment through
Annexure-25 disclosing that the University involved herein has
// 2 //
already prepared a proposal of thirty-two Jr. Assistants for
regularization.
2. During course of hearing Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contended that in the event the
regularization of the services of the Petitioners are not given effect
to and development through the advertisement in question gets
completed, the Petitioners are likely to be affected and an
Interlocutory Application is also moved to protect the interest of the
Petitioners. This Court here finds, while issuing notice this Court by
its order dated 2.08.2020 has already directed that any action taken
pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexures-20 & 21 shall remain
subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
3. In his opposition to the stand taken by Mr. Rath, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. Purohit,
learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 while drawing the
attention of this Court to the judgment vide Annexure-18 submitted
that the State Authorities have already filed a writ appeal pending
consideration and Mr. Purohit, learned counsel fairly submitted that
there is no stay order involving such writ appeal as of now. Mr.
Purohit, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 also
made a caterogic statement that the subject in the advertisement has
nothing to do with the direction of this Court through the disposed of
writ petition and the University is undertaking an independent
exercise involving both the issues.
4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, keeping in
view the apprehension of the Petitioners and for the fare submission
of Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3,
// 3 //
this Court finds, undisputedly the Petitioners are in enjoyment of a
direction for regularization of their services through disposal of the
W.P.(C) No.18298 of 2014. Further, for the submission of
Mr. Purohit, learned counsel, it becomes clear that even though the
writ appeal is already filed, there is no stay order involving the
direction of the learned Single Judge as of now. For the opinion of
this Court that unless there is legal impediment inasmuch as stay
order involving the order of the learned Single Judge, benefit flows
through the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be restricted.
For the observation of this Court and for the fair statement of
Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 that
the process undertaken through the advertisement has nothing to do
with the regularization of the services of the Petitioners, this Court
finds, no further order is necessary to be passed in the present writ
petition, which is, hereby disposed of.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
A.K. Jena
