Orissa High Court
Ramakanta Parhi vs State Of Odisha And Others on 14 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No. 154, 155, 156, 157 and 158 of 2012
WA No.154 of 2012
Ramakanta Parhi .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.155 of 2012
Pradip Kumar Das .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.156 of 2012
Prativa Mishra .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.157 of 2012
Anakar Sahu .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
WA No.158 of 2012
Anata Charan Barik .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others ... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. D.R. Mohapatra
Senior Standing Counsel
Page 1 of 6
Mr. Susanta Ku. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Kali Prasan Mishra, Senior Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 14.09.2022
09. 1. On 1st August, 2022 the following order was passed:
"1.The challenge in the present appeals is to a
common order dated 29th March, 2012 of the
learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellants'
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 29573, 29575, 29578,
31382 and 32248 of 2011.
2. The Appellants' were originally selected for the
post of Sikshya Sahayaks (SS) in the category of
physically handicapped (PH) pursuant to an
advertisement issued on 14th October, 2006.
Although they appeared before the authorities and
also signed the agreement, no engagement letter
was issued to them on the plea that the select list
was to be revised on account of the provisions of
the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies Act (ORV
Act). After two rounds of litigation, when the
matters were remanded to the authorities to
examine it afresh, the Collector again rejected the
plea of the Petitioners. Thereafter, writ petitions
were filed in the third round which came up for
hearing before the learned Single Judge and which
came to be dismissed on two grounds:
(i) That the affected parties who had been selected,
had not been impleaded as parties in the writ
petitions.
(ii) The writ petitions were barred by laches as the
selection took place in 2008 whereas the writ
petitions were filed only in 2011.
3. The above grounds for rejection of the writ
petitions were set out in the impugned order, where
the learned Single Judge observed in para 6 as
under:
"6. It transpires in course of hearing of the case that
while reserving post of SS for the physically
handicapped category persons, the authorities have
reserved post within that category for scheduled
caste and scheduled tribe and socially and
economically backward classes categories, which is
in complete violation of the rule of law propounded
by the Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Gupta v.
Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (supra). The Supreme
Court in clear terms laid down that the authorities
cannot create categories within categories and
reserve seats in the physically handicapped
category for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe
and other backward classes. The action of the
opposite parties is definitely not in consonance with
the ratio decided by the Supreme Court."
4. In other words, the learned Single Judge agreed
with the present Appellants that they could not have
been denied appointment under the PH category
and that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme
Court of India in Mahesh Gupta v. Yashwant
Kumar Ahirwar (2007) 8 SCC 621 within the quota
of PH, there cannot be a further reservation for SC,
ST and SEBC. In other words, the reservation for
the PH category was a horizontal reservation which
was unaffected by the reservation in vertical mode
for SCs, STs and SEBCs.
5. As far as the plea of the petitions being barred by
laches, the Court is satisfied that there were earlier
rounds of litigation which was initiated by the
Petitioners in 2008 and thereafter in 2010 and
therefore, it was not as if the Petitioners waited for
over three years to agitate their rights.
6. As far as the first ground of rejection regarding
non-impleading of the selected candidates, it is seen
that in the present writ appeals pursuant to an
application filed by the original writ Petitioners, the
selected candidates have been impleaded as
Respondents. One of them i.e. Respondent No.5 is
represented by Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate.
7. In the writ petition originally filed as well as in
the writ appeals, there is no prayer for removal of
the selected candidates. The prayer is only that the
PH category candidates i.e. the Appellants who
were duly selected ought to be accommodated
against the vacancies available for them.
8. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Respondent No.5 also points out that there is no
prayer as such in the writ appeal regarding removal
of the selected candidates. On their behalf, Mr.
Mishra, states that they would have no objection if
the Appellants could be accommodated as PH
candidates against any vacancy that might still be
available.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for
the State seeks time for instructions on whether
there are vacancies in PH quota against which the
present Appellants can be accommodated. An
affidavit specific to that query should be filed by
the Respondent-State within four weeks.
10. List on 14th September, 2022."
2. Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit has been filed on 13th
September, 2022 by the District Education Officer, Bhadrak in
which in Para-5, it is stated as under:
"5. That, it is respectfully submitted that, Sri
Ramakanta Parhi, the petitioner in W.A.
No.154/2012 has applied under PH, Visual
Impaired category for which 13 posts earmarked for
the purpose and all 13 posts were filled up. There is
no vacancy under PH, Visual Impaired category.
Sri Pradip Kumar Das, the petitioner in W.A.
NO.155/2012 and Sri Ananta Charan Barik, the
petitioner in W.A. No.158/2012 had applied under
PH, Orthopaedic Handicapped category for which
12 posts earmarked for the purpose. Out of said 12
posts, 8 posts were filled up remaining 04 posts are
lying vacant.
Smt. Prativa Mishra, the petitioner in W.A.
No.156/2012, and Sri Anakar Sahu, the petitioner in
W.A. No.157/2012 had applied under PH, Hearing
Impaired category for which 13 posts earmarked for
the purpose. Out of said 13 posts of Hearing
Impaired category 6 posts were filled up remaining
7 posts are lying vacant."
3. Therefore, as regards the Appellants i.e. Sri Pradip Kumar Das,
Sri Anata Charan Barik, Smt. Prativa Mishra and Sri Anakar Sahu,
they may be accommodated against the vacant posts as mentioned
without any claim for back-dated seniority. The necessary orders
in their favour in the above terms be issued within a period of eight
weeks from today.
4. As regards Sri Ramakanta Parhi, if any post earmarked for
visually impaired category is vacant at present, he be
accommodated there against again without any claim as to
seniority from a back date. If at present there is no vacancy, then
he be given priority in being accommodated against the first
available vacancy in the visually impaired category hereafter.
5. The writ appeals are disposed of in the above terms. An urgent
certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
S.K. Jena/Secy.
