Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Gouda @ vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 4 December, 2023
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11292 of 2021
Ranjan Kumar Gouda @ .... Petitioner
Ranjan Gouda
Mr. Niranjan Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.12.2023
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays
that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to
admit this writ petition and issue Rule NISI to the Opp.
Parties to show cause,
i) As to why the action taken under Annexure-
21 rejecting the petitioner's appointment
under RA scheme, 2020 shall not be
quashed;
ii) As to why the petitioner shall not be given
// 2 //
appointment under the provision of OCS
(RA) Rule, 1990 and Amended Rules, 2016
with all consequential service and financial
benefits;
i) If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, then the Rule may be made
absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs,
direction/orders as deems fit and proper."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down by
this Court in Roshan Kerketta v. State of Odisha and Others
(W.P.(C) No.11105 of 2021 disposed of on 13.01.2023). It was also
contended that in Roshan Kerketta's case (supra), the Government
has already implemented the judgment of this Court.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that the
Opposite Parties be directed to first examine as to whether the facts
of the present case are covered by the judgment of this Court in
Roshan Kerketta's case (supra). In the event it is found that the
Petitioner stands in similar footing with the above named Roshan
Kerketta and the factual background of both the cases are identical,
then the Opposite Parties be directed to apply the judgment in
Roshan Kerketta's case (supra) in the fact of the present case and he
will have no objection to the same.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of
the background facts of the present case, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing
the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner by taking
into consideration the law down by this Court in Roshan Kerketta's
case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of
// 3 //
communication of a certified copy of this order. The Opposite Parties
are further directed that before applying the judgment in Roshan
Kerketta's case (supra) to the facts of the present case, the Opposite
Parties shall first consider as to whether the present Petitioner stands
in similar footing with the above named Roshan Kerketta and the
factual background of both the cases are identical.
7. In view of the aforesaid direction, the impugned rejection
order dated 21st October, 2020 under Annexure-21 to the writ petition
is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Opposite
Party No.4 to consider the matter afresh in terms of the direction
given hereinabove.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
