Hrushikesh Ghivela vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4357 Ori

Orissa High Court

Hrushikesh Ghivela vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 24 February, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               WP(C) No.32832 of 2024
            Hrushikesh Ghivela                .....     Petitioner
                                                                Represented By Adv. -
                                                                Prafulla Kumar
                                                                Mohapatra

                                            -versus-
            State Of Odisha and others                 .....         Opposite Parties
                                                               Represented By Adv. -

                                                               Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA

                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                           ORDER

24.02.2025 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:

"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(i) direct the 0pp. Parties to give appointment to the Petitioner against the existing vacant post of Jr. Asst. (Group-C) on regular basis as per O.C.S.(R.A.) Rules, 1990, taking in to account his education qualification as B.Sc., Botany(Hons.), Diploma in Forest Management and PGDCA qualification, instead of the post of Peon (Group-D) under O.C.S.(R.A.) Rules, 2020, as has

been given to other similarly situated persons, as per the principles decided by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dipti Ranjan Mishra -Vrs.- State of Odisha & Others vide Annexure-10 and thereby modifying the Order, dated 28.06.2024 as at Annexure-9;

(ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that father of the Petitioner, who was working as a Forest Guard, died in harness on 23.09.2008 leaving behind his wife and one son (the present Petitioner) and three daughter. 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 returned vide order dated 23.05.2016 on the ground that the distress certificate cannot be issued, therefore, the case of the Petitioner cannot be considered in view of the provisions contained in Rule-9(6) 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.2798 (C) of 2016, which was transferred to this Court and finally disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2022 with a direction to provide appointment

to the applicant-petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 within a period of six weeks.

6. Since the order passed by this Court dated 12.08.2022 was not carried out, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing CONTC No.2775 of 2024. The said contempt petition was disposed of on 07.05.2024.

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 Peon vide order dated 28.06.2024, under Annexure-9, under the Opposite Party No.2. 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 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 28.06.2024 under Annexure-9 by taking into consideration the order dated 12.08.2022 passed by this Court in WPC (OA) No.2798 of 2016. 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 a Peon 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 12.08.2022, the Petitioner is given liberty to approach the Opposite Party No.1 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.1 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.1 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.1 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) and in Dipti Ranjan Mishra v. State of Orissa & Others (W.P.(C) No.21648 of 2015, disposed of vide judgement dated 02.05.2017).

10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis