Ranjan Ku. Rout vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5608 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   W.P.(C) No. 15096 of 2014

                 Ranjan Ku. Rout                ....                  Petitioner
                                                     Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate

                                          -versus-

             State of Odisha and others         ....            Opposite Parties
                                                        Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, AGA
                                                     Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate

                              CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                                        ORDER

10.05.2023 Order No.

22. 1. This matter was reserved for delivery of judgment but for certain clarification, the matter is listed today under the heading "To be mentioned".

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Patitapaban Dutta Dash and others disposed of on 09.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in its order dated 12.04.2023 in W.A. No.777 of 2021 and also the judgment dated 03.09.2020 in W.P.(C) No.22112 of 2020 inter alia, on the ground that the case at hand merits consideration in view of the judgments referred to herein above. Since, the petitioner, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is similarly circumstanced.

4. Learned counsel for the State has distinguished the judgments, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner's appointment was never against the sanctioned post and he lacks basic qualification and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 the case at hand is liable to be dismissed.

5. During the course further hearing, it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the State that an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner which is at flag-G indicating that he is serving as DEO. On close scrutiny of pleadings, it is seen that there is nothing on record to indicate that the said affidavit has been served on the learned counsel for the State.

5.A. It is apt to state that state that none of the counsel addressed this Court with reference to the said affidavit during the course of hearing.

6. This Court is of the considered view that such affidavit has a direct bearing on the point at issue and prima facie sets at naught the stands of the Opposite Parties in their counter(s).

7. List this matter on 22.06.2023 under the same heading.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Santoshi

Digitally signed by SANTOSHI SANTOSHI LENKA LENKA Date: 2023.05.11 17:05:20 +05'30'