Orissa High Court
Sruti Pragyan Swain vs State Of Odisha & Others on 10 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22697 of 2023
Sruti Pragyan Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Routray, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.08.2023
Order No
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Routray, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate appearing for Opp. Party No.1, Mr. P.S. Nayak,
learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 and
Ms. Sarita Panda, learned counsel who has already
entered appearance on behalf of Opp. party No.4
3. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the advertisement issued by Opp. Party
No.2 on 28.06.2023 under Annexure-10 inviting
application to fill up the post of Asst. Professor in
different Departments of the institution of Opp. Party
No.4 which also includes Deptt. of MCA.
3.1. It is contended that the Petitioner is continuing as
an Asst. Professor in the Deptt. of MCA since
16.11.2012. In the meantime, this Court vide its
// 2 //
order dt.10.02.2023 in W.P.C(OAC) No.4568 of 2015
under Annexure-8 has directed the Opp. Parties to
absorb the Petitioners on regular basis against
sanctioned vacant post taking into account the length of
service rendered by her in the respective post in which
she is continuing without insisting on her to undergo
the rigors of selection procedure. It is accordingly
contended that on the face of the said order passed on
10.02.2023 under Annexure-8 which was passed in the
light of the common order passed by this Court on
12.07.2022 in W.P.(C ) No.18659 of 2016 and batch,
Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 should not have gone for fresh
selection to fill up the post in which the petitioner is
continuing, by issuing the impugned advertisement
under Annexure-10.
4. Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the
BPUT on the other hand contended that the order under
Annexure-8 in WPC(OAC) No.4568 of 2015 was passed
basing on the common order passed by this Court on
12.07.2022 in W.P.(C ) No.18659 of 2016 and batch. It
is contended that the order passed on 12.07.2022 in the
aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions is under challenge
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in various Special Leave
Petitions and Hon'ble Apex Court has issued notice of
the matter in the meantime.
It is accordingly contended that since the order
dt.12.07.2022 is under challenge before the Hon'ble
Apex Court, no illegality has been committed by the
Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 in going to fill up the post in
// 3 //
question by issuing the advertisement under
Annexure-10.
5. Ms. S. Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opp.
party No.4 on the other hand contended that against
the order passed on 10.02.2023 in WPC(OAC) No.4568
of 2015, the Opp. Party No.4 has filed RVWPET No.73 of
2023. It is accordingly contended that since the
common order passed in the aforesaid batch of Writ
Petitions, basing on which the claim of the Petitioner
was also disposed of vide order under Annexure-8 is
pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as before this Court in review, no right accrues in
favour of the Petitioner in challenging the advertisement
in question.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials available on record,
this Court finds that vide its judgment dt.12.07.2022,
this Court while disposing a batch of matters, directed
the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to absorb the petitioner on
regular basis against the sanctioned vacant post and
without insisting upon to undergo the rigors of selection
process. Even though the said order as contended is
under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but it is
found that there is no interim order staying the
operation of the order. Therefore on the ground of
pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the action of Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 in issuing the
impugned advertisement to fill up the post of Asst.
Professor in the Deptt. of MCA in which the petitioner is
// 4 //
continuing since 2004, as per the considered view of
this Court is not just and proper. Unless and until the
direction of this Court so contained in its judgment
dt.12.07.2022 is set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the action of Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 in going for
recruitment by issuing the impugned advertisement is
not legal and justified.
7. At this point of time, Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned
counsel for Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 contended that even
though the advertisement has been issued to fill up the
post of Asst. Professor in the Deptt. of MCA, but the
petitioner will not be affected by such selection, as no
coercive action will be taken by disengaging him from
the said post.
In view of such submission of learned counsel
appearing for Opp. party Nos.2 & 3, this Court while
disposing the Writ Petition observes that the selection
process in terms of the advertisement will continue and
any action taken by the Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 to fill up
the post in question will be at their risk. The Petitioner
will be allowed to continue as undertaken and his
continuance will be subject to final decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition so filed
by the University as well as the College.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
// 5 //
sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 16-Aug-2023 14:30:05
