Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties on 21 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.28597 & 28599 of 2023
Dillip Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Patnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & .... Opp. Parties
Others Mr. T.P. Acharya,
Advocate for University
Mr. T.N. Pattanaik,
Advocate for University in
(W.P.(C) No.28597 of 2023)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order ORDER
No 21.04.2025
11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions
are similar, both were heard analogously and disposed of
by the present common order.
4. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia
challenging the order passed by the Utkal University
rejecting the claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of
regularization. It is contended that both the petitioners
had earlier approached this Court in separate Writ
// 2 //
Petitions and this Court while disposing the matter,
directed the University to consider the claim of the
petitioners taking into account the order passed in similar
cases by this Court in the case of Srikanta Kumar
Behera and Narayan Chandra Das and Others.
Direction contained in Para-6 of the order dated
13.07.2023
reads as follows:-
"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into account the fact that no decision has been taken
on either way while considering the claim of the petitioners,
this Court while disposing the Writ Petitions directs Opposite
Party No.3 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioners
for their regularization within a period of 3 (three) months
from the date of receipt of this order. While taking such a
decision, the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Srikanta Kumar Behera and subsequent order passed by
this Court in the case Narayan Chandra Das be taken into
consideration if it is applicable as contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioners."
4.1. It is contended that without following the common
direction of this Court so passed on 13.07.2023 and
without discussing anything as to whether decisions in
the case of Srikanta Kumar Behera and Narayan Chandra
Das is applicable to the claim of the petitioners or not,
claim of the petitioners was rejected vide the impugned
orders in both the Writ Petitions.
4.2. It is contended that since this Court specifically
directed the University to consider the claim of the
petitioners taking note of the decisions in the case of
Srikanta Kumar Behera and Narayan Chandra Das if
applicable, while rejecting such claim vide the impugned
orders, applicability of those 2 (two) decisions should have
// 3 //
been considered, with passing of appropriate reason, if the
decisions are not applicable to the claim of the petitioners.
4.3. Since nothing has been indicated in the impugned
order as to whether decisions in the above noted 2 cases
were taken into consideration or not, impugned orders are
not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference
of this Court.
5. Mr. T.P. Acharya and Mr. T.N. Pattanaik, learned
counsels appearing for the University on the other hand
contended that on verification since it is found that those
decisions were not applicable, claim of the petitioners were
rejected vide the impugned orders in question. It is
contended that since the decisions in the above noted 2
(two) cases are not applicable to the case of the petitioners
after due consideration of the same, claim of the
petitioners has been rejected. It is accordingly contended
that no interference is called for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that
petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing
separate Writ Petitions and this Court vide a common
order passed on 13.07.2023, directed the University to
take a decision on the petitioners' claim. While so
directing, this Court also directed to look into the orders
passed in the case of Srikanta Kumar Behera and
// 4 //
Narayan Chandra Das, if it is applicable to the case of the
petitioners.
6.1. Since as found from the impugned orders nothing
has been shown that those 2 (two) decisions were taken
into consideration and are not applicable to the
petitioners' claim, this Court is inclined to quash the
impugned orders passed in both the Writ Petitions. While
quashing those orders, this Court directs the University to
take a fresh decision in the light of the orders passed on
13.07.2023 in W.P.(C) No.13075 of 2022 and batch. Such
a fresh decision as directed be taken within a period of
3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order with
due communication to the petitioners.
7. Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Apr-2025 17:45:06
