Orissa High Court
Mahima Prasad Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4652 of 2025
Mahima Prasad Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Pradipta Kumar
Pattanayak
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
17.02.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is therefore prayed that, your Lordships shall be
graciously pleased enough to Admit the writ application and
after hearing the parties issue a writ of mandamus to declare
the action of the Opp.parties in giving appointment to the
petitioner against the post of Attendant (Group-D) post is
invalid in the eye of law and also prayed to direct the
Opp.parties more particularly the Opp.party No.2 to revise
and modify the appointment order dt.26.09.2024 issued in
favour of the petitioner under Annexure-7, by giving
appointment to the petitioner against vacant (Group-C) post
i.e. Junior Clerk, befitting to his educational qualification
and also keeping in view of the select list prepared by the
Opp.party No.2, as per the result of the qualifying test held
on 10.1.2016 under Annexure-1 series for the post of Junior
Clerk though other two similarly situated candidates have
already been appointed as Junior Clerk (Group-C) post
(under Annexure-6) by the Opp.party No.2, keeping in view
of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case of Manmohan
Biswal-vs-State of Odisha & others reported in 2022
(Supp) OLR 145;
AND/OR
Issue any direction/directions, order/orders, writ/writs
which would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case;"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
father of the Petitioner, who was working as a Senior Clerk, died in
harness on 05.01.2006 leaving behind his wife and two sons.
Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate
ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Since the mother of the
Petitioner was alive and was unable to discharge official duties, the
Petitioner with the consent of other legal heirs applied for a job on
compassionate ground. Thereafter, the mother of the Petitioner was
asked to appear before the Medical Board. On being duly certified
that she is incapable/ unfit to discharge official duties, the case of the
Petitioner was taken up for consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
application of the Petitioner was kept pending unnecessarily.
Thereafter, the same was rejected vide order dated 25.03.2020 on the
ground that the mother of the Petitioner is alive, therefore, the case of
the Petitioner cannot be considered in view of the provisions
contained in Rule-2(b) of the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990. Being
aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner approached the learned
Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.3814(C)
of 2016. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 10.11.2017, allowed
the O.A. and the order dated 28.06.2016 was quashed. Further, a
direction was given to provide appointment to the applicant-
petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 within a period of two
months.
6. Since the order passed by the Tribunal dated 10.11.2017 was
not carried out, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court
by filing W.P.(C) No.24762 of 2021. This Court took up the said writ
application along with two other similar matters and vide a common
judgment dated 31.10.2023, the writ applications were allowed and
the Opposite Parties were directed to give appointment to the
Petitioners under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as directed by the
Tribunal within a period of two months.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that after
disposal of the above noted writ application, the Petitioner was given
appointment to a Group-D post as Attendant vide letter dated
26.09.2024, under Annexure-7, under the Opposite Party No.3. He
further contended that initially the Petitioner had applied for
appointment against a Group-C post by taking into consideration the
educational qualification of the Petitioner. He further contended that
under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, appointment to Group-C post was
permissible. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submitted that two of the similarly situated persons
have also been given appointment against the Group-C post of Junior
Clerk under Annexure-6 to the writ application vide order dated
27.07.2023 ignoring the just and fair claim of the present petitioner.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Opposite Parties should have considered the case
of the Petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court in the above
noted writ application as well as the direction of the Tribunal, and the
Petitioner should have been given appointment against a Group-C
post of Junior Clerk, which is lying vacant, by taking into
consideration the educational qualification of the Petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of the Opposite Parties, the
Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
application.
8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand
contended that the Petitioner has been given appointment vide letter
dated 26.09.2024 under Annexure-7 by taking into consideration the
order dated 31.10.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24762 of
2021. He further contended that on an overall assessment and further
taking into consideration the educational qualification and the
competence of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been appointed as an
Attendant against a Group-D post. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the State submitted that, the Opposite Parties have not
committed any illegality in this matter. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the writ application is devoid of merit, hence it should be
dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as
materials on record as well as the submissions made before this
Court, further keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner had initially
applied for a Group-C post under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990 and
similarly situated persons have been given appointed against Group-
C post, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties
should have considered the case of the Petitioner keeping in view his
educational qualification and the application made by the Petitioner
for appointment against a Group-C post. Since the Petitioner has
been given appointment in obedience of the order passed by this
Court on 31.10.2023, the Petitioner is given liberty to approach the
Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation taking therein
all the grounds along with all supporting documents within a period
of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party
No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and redress
the grievance of the Petitioner in terms of the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990
within a period of three months from the date on which the Petitioner
files his representation along with a certified copy of today's order.
Any decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be also
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of
taking such a decision. While considering the representation of the
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall take into consideration the
law laid down by this Court in Manmohan Biswal & Ors. vs. State
of Odisha & Ors. (WPC(OAC) No.3829 of 2015, disposed of vide
judgment dated 27.01.2022).
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Digitally Signed Page 5 of 5.
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa
Date: 18-Feb-2025 11:25:16
