Orissa High Court
Dr. Rajalaxmi Beura vs Vice Chancellor on 9 April, 2025
Author: M.S. Sahoo
Bench: M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9113 of 2025
Dr. Rajalaxmi Beura .... Petitioner
Mr. A.N. Das, Sr. Advocate
Instructed by Mr. N. Sarkar, Advocate
-versus-
Vice Chancellor, OUAT, .... Opp. Parties
Bhubaneswar and others
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
09.04.2025
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner is yet to get the
relief even after succeeding at several stages of
litigation starting with the judgment passed by this
Court on 08.08.2017 by the coordinate Bench in
W.P.(C) No.11236 of 2010. The learned Senior Counsel
refers to paragraph-17 of the judgment, which is
reproduced herein:
"17. In view of the discussions made in the
foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the
considered view that since a vacancy was
created due to resignation of Dr. Chinmaya
Pradhan, who stood first in order of the merit list
prepared pursuant to advertisement dated
10.08.2008, the petitioner, being placed at serial
no.4 of the said merit list, should have been
given substantive appointment against the said
vacancy, as the candidate at serial no,2 had
already been appointed during subsistence of the
select list, and the candidate at serial no.3 had
jointed elsewhere. The authorities are, therefore,
directed to give substantive appointment to the
petitioner and regularize of Dr. Chinmaya
Pradhan and extend all consequential service
benefits admissible to the post in accordance
with law. The entire exercise shall be completed
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the judgment."
2. The judgment was unsuccessfully challenged by
the opposite parties filing writ appeal bearing W.A.
No.395 of 2017. The writ appeal was dismissed by
order dated 01.11.2022 of the Division Bench. The
matter was carried to the Supreme Court by SLP (C)
No.14246 of 2023. The SLP was dismissed by order
dated 09.04.2024 with the following observations:-
1. This application has been moved by the
learned counsel for the petitioners praying inter
alia for waiver of cost of ₹20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty thousand only) imposed on the
petitioners on account of non-filing of rejoinder
affidavit on time.
2. We are not inclined to concede to the prayer
made in the application for waiver of cost. The
application is dismissed.
3. The cost of ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
thousand only) shall be deposited by the
petitioners within two working days from today,
as directed by this Court vide order dated 7th
November, 2023.
4. Further, we are not inclined to interfere
with the order impugned herein under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal is
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, are
disposed of."
3. It is submitted that thereafter, since the opposite
party-authorities did not implement the order passed
by the coordinate Bench confirmed by the writ
appellate Bench and after dismissal of the SLP, the
petitioner filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
No.14044 of 2024 which has been disposed of by order
dated 07.08.2024. The learned Senior Counsel refers
to paragraphs-3 to 7 of the said order which are
reproduced herein:
"3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court
on 23.07.2024, Mr. S. Das, learned counsel
appearing for the University produced the
instruction so provided vide letter
dtd.06.08.2024. The same be kept in record.
4. Basing on the instruction Mr. Das, learned
counsel appearing for the University contended
that Petitioner has been released with the
salary for the month of April, May & June, 2024
in the meantime and vide order dtd.23.07.2024
Petitioner has been regularized as against the
post of Asst. Professor, Botany w.e.f.
08.08.2017.
5. In view of such development, which was
taken place in the meantime, learned counsel
appearing for the University contended that the
prayer as made in the writ petition has become
infructuous.
6. Dr. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner on the other hand contended that
even though Petitioner is eligible to get the
benefit of regularization w.e.f.30.04.2010, but
since vide office order dtd.23.07.2024, he has
been so regularized w.e.f.08.08.2017, Petitioner
may be permitted to challenge office order.
7. Considering the submission made, this Court
while disposing the writ petition, grants liberty
to the Petitioner to challenge office order
dtd.23.07.2024, if the Petitioner is so advised.
Petitioner in the meantime be released with his
salary in terms of order dt.23.07.2024."
4. It is submitted that the petitioner has also filed
contempt petition being CONTC No.6083 of 2024
alleging non-compliance of the orders as indicated
above which is pending adjudication before this Court.
Being left with no alternative the petitioner challenges
the office order dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure-7) which
indicates the petitioner's employment as Assistant
Professor, Botany, College of Basic Science &
Humanities, OUAT, Bhubaneswar w.e.f. 08.08.2017
though the judgment of this Court dated 08.08.2017
by the coordinate Bench clearly provides the
appointment as Assistant Professor to be given w.e.f.
30.04.2010.
5. Issue notice along with this order.
Requisites for issuance of notice to the opposite
parties by speed/registered post with A.D. be filed
within three working days. Early returnable date be
fixed.
6. List after service return. Liberty to mention for
listing before the assigned Bench.
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
RJ
