Orissa High Court
Bharat Chandra Si vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.27526 of 2021
Bharat Chandra Si .... Petitioner
Mr. B.P. Dhal, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.R.Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 12.08.2025
6. 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 impugned communication
dt.27.08.2021 so issued by the Govt.- Opp. party No.1
under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the
Petition to get the benefit of regularization in his
services was rejected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that taking into account the continuance of
the Petitioner w.e.f 11.04.1989, Petitioner made a
grievance before Opp. Party No.1 on 03.05.2021 under
Annexure-9 with a prayer to regularize him in his
services. However, vide the impugned communication,
// 2 //
the same was rejected without assigning any reason
and the said order is also a non-speaking one.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since the impugned order is a non-
speaking one and no reason has been assigned, the same
is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.2. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned
counsel for the Petitioner relied on decisions of this
Court reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 & 2013 (Supp.1)
OLR-736.
4.3. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the judgment reported
in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-
"8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any
reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the
tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must
pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its
conclusion are based.
10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same it
becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar
(2003) 11 SCC 510]".
4.4. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported
in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-
"13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and
keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we
are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to
// 3 //
exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order
of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and
conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are
the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to
dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the
affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the
proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court
must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or
declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner".
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also fairly
contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party
No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submissions made, since it
is found that Petitioner's claim has been rejected
without assigning any reason vide Annexure-10, this
Court is inclined to quash the said rejection. While
quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1
to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner's claim as
made in Annexure-9 in accordance with law, within a
period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of
this order with due communication to the Petitioner.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Date: 13-Aug-2025 14:12:17
