Orissa High Court
A. Santi Kumari Kanda Dora vs State Of Odisha And Others on 29 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26382 of 2023
A. Santi Kumari Kanda Dora .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Ray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. I. Mohanty, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 29.08.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayers:
"Therefore the petitioner most respectfully prays
that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to
admit the case, call for the relevant records and after
hearing may be pleased to:-
(i) Quash the impugned order dated
11.05.2023/Annexure-7 passed by the
Opp.Party No.4 on basis of the New Rule,
in violation of the mandate of the
Honourable Apex Court passed in the case
of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs Orissa and
others reported in AIR 2022 SC 2836.
(ii) Direct Opp.party No.4 to issue appointment
// 2 //
order in favour of the petitioner as per
Annexure-6, wherein applicants standing in
similar footing are provided with
appointment
(iii) And pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as it would be deemed
fit and proper to the facts and circumstances
of the case in order to provide complete
justice to the petitioner."
4. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that his application for
appointment under the OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990
has not been considered by the authorities as per rules. Further,
drawing attention of this Court towards the impugned rejection order
dated 11.05.2023 under Annexure-7, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Chief District
Medical and Public Health Officer, Koraput-Opposite Party No.4 is
cryptic one and the same is devoid of any reason whatsoever.
5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of
this Court to the fact that the father of the petitioner, who died in
harness on 13.06.2016 in view of the death certificate under
Annexure-2 series should been considered under OCS
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020 keeping in view the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in
2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, the case of the petitioner should have been
considered under OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990 and the petitioner should
have been appointed forthwith. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order under
Annexure-7 is unsustainable in law and the same should be quashed.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the
other hand, submitted that after considering the case of the petitioner
// 3 //
under OCS(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020, the Opposite
Parties found that the petitioner has not been recommended for
appointment under aforesaid rules. Accordingly, the case of the
petitioner has been rejected. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not
committed any illegality in considering the case of the petitioner
under the OCS(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 2020. Accordingly,
the writ application is devoid of merit and the same should be
dismissed at the threshold.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the
background facts of the case as well as the impugned order dated
11.05.2023 under Annexure-7, this Court is of the considered view
that the order passed by the Opposite Party No.4 dated 11.05.2023
under Annexure-7 is rejected and further taking into consideration the
fact that the application made for appointment under rehabilitation
Assistance Scheme kept pending for a long period indefinitely and
final decision has been taken thereby rejecting the application of the
petitioner vide order dated 11.05.2023 under Annexure-7. In this
context, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a decision in the case of
Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in
2022(II) OLR(SC)-1 and various identical scenario Hon'ble Apex
Court has concluded that the application of the appointment should
have been considered under old rules keeping in view the date of
death of the father of the petitioner in the reported judgment, this
Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others
(supra). Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 11.05.2023
under Annexure-7 is unsustainable in law and the same is hereby set
// 4 //
aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Parties to
consider the case keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of
Orissa and others (supra) as well as State of West Bengal vrs.
Debabrata Tiwari and Others. Etc. Etc., reported in (2023) (3)
SCALE 557. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed to
consider the application of the petitioner as has been directed
hereinabove and take a decision within a period of two months from
the date of communication of this order. Decision so taken shall be
communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks
thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Jagabandhu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA
Designation: Secretary-in-Charge
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 01-Sep-2023 10:25:32
