Hemanta Kumar Nayak vs This Matter Is Taken Up By Video ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2009 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        WPC(OA) NO. 1420 OF 2014


        Hemanta Kumar Nayak                       ....                Petitioner
                                                       Mr.Ajit
                                                          Ajit Rath, Advocate
                                       -versus-
        State of Odisha and others                ....            Opp.Parties
                                                         Mr. S.K.Samal,AGA


                             CORAM:
                             THE JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

Order                                 ORDER
No.02                                29.03.2022

         1.

. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. None appears for the petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the State.

4. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of rejection dated 06.10.2012 under Annexure--5 passed by the opposite party No.2/Principal Secretary, Government of Odisha, Agriculture Department.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner petitioner got a letter of selection from the Director, Horticulture, Odisha to undergo ten months Garderner's Training Course during the year 1999 for their appointment as Gardener in the Government firm under the opposite party No.2. After successful completion pletion of said training, certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the authorities expecting to get appointment, the opposite party No.1 held that // 2 //

the opposite party No.2 selected 356 candidates as Gardeners traineee irregularly and imparted them training in some unidentified firms outside the School of Horticulture at Khurda. It is further stated that some of the candidates who were appointed by the opposite party No.2 on ad hoc basis, many of them were terminated as irregular trainees as per Letter No.34205/Ag. dated 10.12.1999 of Agriculture Department Department.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, order some of them filed O.As before the O.A.T which were allowed and their termination were set aside.

aside Against the said order the he writ petition was filed before this Court by the State vide W.P.(C) No.3527 of 2007 which has been dismissed by this Court and held that the action of the opposite parties is discriminatory and they should not adopt pick and choose choose method. The training undergone in different firms, allotted to them is valid. Following the same principle the Hon'ble Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.1394 of 2011 and batch of cases. Since this Court and O.A.T. have hav decided the case on principle,, in general g in favour of the trainees of the year 1999, the petitioner who is trainee of the same batch expected to get the benefits of judgment, for which, which he submitted his representation. As no order was passed on the representation the petitioner filed O.A.No.394 No.394 of 2011 which has been subsequently transferred too this Court after abolition of learned Tribunal.

// 3 //

Since the petitioner was excluded from the purview of the

8.Since appointment by opposite parties and some similarly placed persons have been appointed, this petition has been filed for adjudication.

9. Learned counsel for the State is directed to take instructions in the matter.

10. List this matter on 7th of April of 2022.

(S. K. Panigrahi) Panigrahi Judge

LB