Sashikanta Jena & Others vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 208 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.40017 of 2021

                 Sashikanta Jena & others                ....            Petitioners
                                                         Mr. B.Satpathy, Advocate
                                              -versus-

                 State of Odisha and others            ....          Opp. Parties
                                               Mr. B.Mohanty, Standing Counsel
                                                                       S & ME

                                         CORAM:

                            JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

                                             ORDER

Order No.                                   10.01.2022
    01.     1.      This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.

2. The Limited grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ application is that they have submitted a representation dated 17th April, 2021 to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School & Mass Education Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.1.

3. It is stated that the said representation is pending as of now. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that they claimed appointment in the backlog vacancy of Sikshya Sahayaks as has been directed in W.A.No.701 of 2019. It is further submitted that due to non-selection of candidates during past few years, they have become overaged and their candidatures have been rejected on the ground that they become overage in the meantime. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that if a direction is given to Opposite Party No.1 to consider their case in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.A.No.701 // 2 //

of 2019, then their grievance shall be redressed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department submits that he has no objection if a direction is given to Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of the writ application with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation dated 17th April, 2021, if any pending before him within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order.

6. It is needless to mention here that the Opposite Party No.1 shall pass a speaking and reasoned order taking into consideration the materials placed before him by the Petitioner. Any decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of 10 days thereafter.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

8. With the aforesaid observation the writ application stands disposed of.

9. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021 and Office Order dated 7th January, 2022.

RKS                                          ( A.K. Mohapatra)
                                                    Judge
 // 3 //