Indumati Rath vs State Of Odisha & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6594 Ori

Orissa High Court

Indumati Rath vs State Of Odisha & Others on 3 April, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) No. 1536 of 2022
        Indumati Rath                    ....                      Petitioner
                                                    Mr. S. K. Mishra, Advocate

                               -versus-
        State of Odisha & Others
                                  ....                     Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

                            CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                        ORDER

02.04.2025 Order No.

06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.13.12.2021 so passed by Govt.-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-12. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment from the year 2012 was rejected.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 09.12.2011 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made her application to get the benefit of engagement as Sikshya Sahayak.

4.1. It is contended that since while preparing the final select list, the authorities concerned violated the reservation principle and accordingly Petitioner could // 2 //

not get the benefit of engagement, Petitioner challenging the same approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.21050 of 2012. This Court vide order dtd.07.05.2018 under Annexure-4 directed the authority to bring out a fresh list within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order.

4.2. It is contended that the State-Authorities though filed a Review Petition in Review Petition No.231 of 2018 seeking review of the order dtd.07.05.2018, but the said review petition was dismissed vide order dtd.07.01.2019 under Annexure-5.

4.3. It is contended that after dismissal of the review petition and while implementing the order dtd.07.05.2018 with preparation of the fresh select list, Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of engagement as Sikshya Sahayak and accordingly she was engaged vide order dtd.08.03.2019 so issued under Annexure-8.

4.4. It is contended that since for the laches on the part of the authorities in preparing the list by exceeding the reservation percentage, Petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of appointment when persons similarly situated were appointed in the year 2012, and pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Annexure-4 and on preparation of a fresh select list, Petitioner got the benefit of engagement vide order

// 3 //

dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-8, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment from the date such candidates were engaged on notional basis from the year 2012.

4.5. It is contended that after her engagement as Sikshya Sahayak vide order dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-8, Petitioner claiming benefit of appointment from the date person similarly situated got the benefit of appointment in terms of the earlier select list in the year 2012 made a representation before Opposite Party No.1 on 25.04.2020 vide Annexure-10.

4.6. It is contended that when no decision was taken on such claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-10, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18720 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.20.08.2020 while disposing the Writ Petition directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on Annexure-10.

4.7. It is however contended that in the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.18720 of 2020, Petitioner had made the following prayer:-

"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs. direction/directions, order/orders in directing the Opposite parties to regularize the petitioner as Regular Teacher notionally and grant her all consequential service benefits within a stipulated

// 4 //

period as deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case,

And further the Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the opposite parties to grant the petitioner all consequential service benefits like seniority from the date other persons from the said merit list have been appointed/engaged,

And for this act of this kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray".

4.8. It is contended that since Petitioner claims to get the benefit of appointment from the date persons similarly situated were appointed basing on the select list initially prepared in the year 2012, Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of appointment on notional basis, which was also the prayer in the earlier writ petition. But with the plea that, Petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court was engaged vide office order dtd.08.03.2019, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment w.e.f. 2011-12 notionally along with all service benefit was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.13.12.2021 under Annexure-12.

4.9. It is contended that since for the laches on the part of the authorities, Petitioner's name could not be included in the initial merit list prepared in the year 2012, and pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Annexures-4 and 5, Petitioner was found eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment, her name being included in the fresh select list, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment

// 5 //

with extension of all the benefits on notional basis w.e.f. 2011-12.

4.10. It is accordingly contended that the rejection of the Petitioner's claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this court.

5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.4 made his submission.

5.1. It is contended that challenging the select list published by the authority, Petitioner had earlier approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.21050 of 2012. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 07.05.2018 under Annexure-4 and after dismissal of the Review Petition filed by the State vide order dtd.07.01.2019 under Annexure-5, a fresh merit list was published by limiting the reservation to the extent of 50%. While preparing such a fresh select list, Petitioner was found eligible and accordingly she was extended with the benefit of engagement vide order dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-8.

5.2. It is contended that since pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, Petitioner got the benefit of engagement vide office order dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-8, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit

// 6 //

from the date persons similarly situated were appointed in the year 2012 basing on the earlier select list is not entertainable. However, in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18720 of 2020, the same was considered and rejected vide the impugned order dtd.13.12.2021 under Annexure-12.

5.3. It is also contended that in the order passed by this Court under Annexure-4, there was no direction to give the benefit of engagement to the Petitioner from the date, persons similarly situated were appointed basing on the select list prepared at the initial stage in the year 2012.

5.4. It is contended that since there was no such direction in order dtd.07.05.2018 of this Court to extend the benefit of engagement from the date the other batch of candidates were engaged in the year 2012 basing on the select list published initially, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner made an application to get the benefit of appointment as Sikshya Sahayak. As found from the record challenging the select list so published, Petitioner approached this Court by filing

// 7 //

W.P.(C) No.21050 of 2012. This Court placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.7504, 3453 & 1593 of 2014, wherein this Court had directed to restrict the reservation to the extent of 50%, directed the authorities to prepare a fresh select list without any diversion of the post to any other posts and also strictly following the term involving the women reservation in the advertisement.

6.1. The order passed by this Court on 04.05.2018 though was reviewed by the State by filing Review Petition No.231 of 2018, but the said review petition was dismissed vide order dtd.07.01.2019 under Annexure-5. After such dismissal of the review petition and while complying the order dtd.07.05.2018 with preparation of a fresh select list, Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of engagement and accordingly she was engaged vide order dtd.08.03.2019 under Annexure-8.

6.2. Since it is found from the record that because of the laches of the Opposite Parties in preparing a wrong select list exceeding the reservation, Petitioner's name was not included in the 1st select list, it is the view of this Court that, for such laches on the part of the Opposite Parties, Petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Since for the laches on the part of the Opposite Parties, Petitioner could not get the benefit of engagement in the year 2012, claim of the Petitioner to extend her

// 8 //

with such benefit of appointment on notional basis, is required to be allowed. The stand taken by the Opposite Parties that no such direction was there by this Court in its order dtd.07.05.2018 is not acceptable as by the time such an order was passed, this Court had no information that Petitioner was otherwise eligible to get the benefit of appointment.

6.3. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.13.12.2021 so passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-12. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to extend the benefit of appointment in favour of the Petitioner on notional basis from the date candidates were engaged in the year 2012 basing on the initial select list. This Court directs Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK