Harekrishna Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9149 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          WPC (OA) No. 693 of 2002

            Harekrishna Pradhan                 ....                              Petitioner
                                                              Mr. S.C. Rath, Advocate
                                                -Versus -
            State of Odisha and others          ....                  Opposite Parties
                                                                                    .
                                                                   Mr. N.K. Praharaj,
                                                                   Standing Counsel.

                    CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                     ORDER

01.09.2021

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

2. None appears for the petitioner at the time of call.

3. Heard Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel.

Perused the record.

4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 04.04.2001 under Annexure-15, as well as the order rejecting his representation under Annexure-17 dated 20.08.2001. He further seeks direction to the opposite parties to give promotion to the post of Reader w.e.f. 15.09.1992, instead of 28.05.1994, in view of the judgment of the tribunal passed in O.A. No.362 of 1991, and further seeks direction to the opposite party no.1 to absorb him in any Autonomous College of Orissa with due regard to his qualifications and experience.

5. On perusal of the order in Annexure-15, it appears

that the petitioner, who was working as Principal, Government Evening College, Rourkela, has been transferred and posted as Reader in English in Government Evening College, Rourkela. It is contended that he has been reverted to the post of Reader, which has been denied by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. As such, the petitioner had made representation, but the same was rejected by the authority vide Annexure-17 dated 20.08.2001 stating therein that since one Sarat Kumar Sahu, Reader in Political Science now posted in the Government Evening College, Rourkela was found to be senior to the petitioner, the petitioner was posted as Reader in English in Government Evening College, Rourkela. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner to allow him to continue as Principal of Government Evening College, Rourkela does not arise. More so, this application has been filed in the year 2002 and in the meantime more than 19 years have passed and, as such, in the meantime the petitioner has already superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, by efflux of time, the writ petition has become infructuous.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous.

Ashok                                               (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                         Judge