Dheerendra Kumar Dash & Ors vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 9240 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.7224 of 2016

Dheerendra Kumar Dash & Ors.             .....                                  Petitioners
                                                               Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr.Advocate
                                         Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                   .....                             Opposite Parties
                                                                   Mr. G.N. Rout, ASC
                                                 Mr. P. Panda, Advocate (O.P.No.3 & 4)

                          CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                                ORDER

14.08.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

03.

2. Learned Counsel for the Parties are present.

3. Though this is a matter of the year, 2016, no Counter Affidavit has yet been filed by the Opposite Parties, including the Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4.

4. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners draws attention of this Court to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5(Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 in the present Writ Petition) in W.P.(C) No. 15278 of 2011 previously preferred by the present Writ Petitioners. He also submits, the present Petitioners are similarly placed persons and covered by the judgment of this Court dated 21.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.5668 of 2016 (Rabiratan Sahu & others vs. State of Odisha and others) and hands up a copy of the said judgment. The same be kept on record.

5. Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4, referring to Sections 6 and 7 of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975, shortly, the Act, 1975 submits, reserved post under the said Act cannot be de-reserved for general candidates.

6. In response to the arguments advanced by Mr. Panda, Mr. Rath submits, in view of the specific provisions enshrined under Section 3(d) of the ORV Act, the said Act is not applicable to the Petitioners, who were appointed as contractual employees against regular vacancies and are continuing as such for years together, for which a prayer has been made for regularization of their services. Mr. Rath further submits, the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 in the earlier Writ Petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.15278 of 2011, also substantiate the said stand of the present Petitioners that while appointing them due compliance was made for proper implementation of the ORV Act and at this juncture such an argument advanced by Mr. Panda, contrary to the stand taken in the earlier Writ Petition, is not entertainable. He draws attention of this Court to Paragraph-11 of the said Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 (Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 in the present Writ Petition) in W.P.(C) No. 15278 of 2011, as at Annexure-2, and submits, it has been admitted by the present Opposite Parties in their Counter Affidavit filed in the said Writ Petition that while appointing the Petitioners, it was so done as per the prevailing norms and prior approval of the Authority concerned. Compliance was made to observe proper implementation of ORV Rules.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

8. Hearing concluded. Order/Judgment is reserved.

(S.K.MISHRA) JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 17-Aug-2023 11:10:40