Orissa High Court
Jagabandhu Majhi vs State Of Odisha And on 6 November, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C(OAC) No.155 of 2019
Jagabandhu Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Advocate for OPSC
Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate for O.P. No.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
06.11.2024
I.A. No.89 of 2024
Order No.
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel entered
appearance on behalf of O.P. No.4 by filing
Vakalatnama in Court. The same be kept in record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. This interim application has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to pass an
appropriate order directing the Opp. Party
Nos.1 and 2 not to disturb the appointment of
the opp. Party no.4 while giving appointment to
the petitioner in pursuance to the direction of
// 2 //
this Hon'ble Court in W.P.C(OAC) No.155 of
2019."
5. Learned counsel for O.P. No.4 contended that
even though he had appeared on behalf of the O.P.
No.4, but on the date of hearing of the matter on
23.08.2024, he could not represent O.P. No.4, as his
name was not indicated in the cause list.
5.1. It is further contended that this Court while
disposing the matter vide order dated 23.08.2024,
directed the Commission to recommend the name of
the petitioner for his appointment as against the post of
Lecturer in Electrical Engineering in place of O.P. No.4,
taking into account the mark secured by the petitioner
in the recruitment in question.
5.2. It is contended that basing on the earlier
recommendation, O.P. No.4 was appointed as against
the post in question vide order dated 14.01.2019 and
in the meantime the petitioner has also got the benefit
of promotion to the next higher rank.
5.3. It is contended that petitioner since was appointed
and in the meantime has got the benefit of promotion
without any fault of his own, in view of the decision in the
case of Bikash Mahalik Vrs. State of Odisha and
Others reported in 2022(I) OLR-150, petitioner's services
be protected.
// 3 //
5.4. This Court in Para-27 and 28 of the Judgment in
Bikash Mahalik has held as follows:-
"27. In Pratima Sahoo (supra), this Court held that the
order of disengagement of the petitioner from the post of
Sikhya Sahayak, pursuant to decision of the district
administration, having found qualified in the selection
process and appointed after resigning from her
erstwhile post of Anganwadi Worker and having
worked for six to eight months, amounts to putting the
petitioner in prejudical and disadvantageous position
and the reason assigned for later finding the petitioner
not suitable for securing less marks than other
meritorious candidates do holds good, the petitioner
cannot be found faulted by the mistake committed by
the appointing authority in calculating the percentage.
Consequentially, direction was given to absorb the
petitioner forthwith applying the doctrine of promissory
estoppel in the said case.
28. In view of the law and fact, as discussed above, the
irresistible conclusion is that the show-cause notice
dated 31.03.2015 under Annexure-13 issued by
opposite party no.3, the letter dated 09.02.2015 under
Annexure-13/1 issued by opposite party no.2 to
opposite party no.1 and letter dated 26.03.2015 under
Annexure-13/2 issued by the Government of Odisha,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department to
opposite party no.2 cannot sustain. Therefore, the same
are liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. Pursuant
to interim order passed on 07.04.2019 by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal since the petitioner is still
continuing, he shall be allowed to continue with all
service and financial benefits as due and admissible to
him in accordance with law"."
5.5. It is further contended that at present there are
available vacancies as against the post of Lecturer in
Electrical Engineering in which O.P. No.4 can very well
be adjusted, while providing appointment to the
petitioner as directed. Placing reliance on the document
available vide Annexure-C/4 to the I.A., it is also
contended that at present there are 32 nos. of
vacancies available in the rank of Electrical
// 4 //
Engineering and petitioner can be adjusted as against
one such post.
6. Learned counsels appearing for OPSC as well as
State contended that since the vacancy position is of
the year 2023, they do not have any positive
instruction with regard to the present vacancy position.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made and the fact that
petitioner without any fault of his own was provided
with the appointment vide order dated 14.01.2019 and
in the meantime he has already got the benefit of
promotion vide order dated 12.08.2024 under
Annexure-G/4 to the I.A., this Court placing reliance
on the decision in the case of Bikash Mahalik as cited
(supra), while confirming the order passed on
23.08.2024, direct the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to allow the
petitioner to continue as against the post in question
with due adjustment of his services as against any
vacancy, available at present. Such a fresh decision as
directed be taken and communicated within a period of
4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2024 17:33:20
