Orissa High Court
Ramesh Raj vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 11 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28602 of 2023
Ramesh Raj .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA
Mr. D.N. Mohapatra, Adv.
(For O.P. Nos.2 & 3)
Mr. A. Dash, Adv. (For O.P. No.4)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order ORDER
No. 11.07.2025
12. 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
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:-
// 2 //
"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 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
// 3 //
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 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.13079 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
Digitally Signed Jyoti
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 11-Jul-2025 18:22:12
