Orissa High Court
Dasharath Mahanta vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 7653 of 2025
1. Dasharath Mahanta
2. Puspak Nayak ..... Petitioners
Mr. Janmeajaya Dash, Advocate
-versus-
1. Union of India, represented
through its Secretary, Department of
Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi
2. Director General, Employees
State Insurance Corporation, New
Delhi
3. Regional Director, ESIC Regional
Office, Bhubaneswar
4. Chairperson, Commissioner for
Allied & Health Care Professions,
New Delhi. ..... Opp. Parties
Mr. Rakesh Behera, C.G.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
20.03.2025
Order No.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video
01.
conferencing/physical mode).
Mr. Rakesh Behera, learned Central Government Counsel for
the Union of India files the appearance memo in Court today. The
same is taken on record.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Dasharath
Mahanta and Puspak Nayak, challenging the order dated 27.02.2025
passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/00102 of 2025 in dismissing the
O.A. as well as M.A. No. 84 of 2025 holding that the petitioners'
have no locus standi to file the OA before the Tribunal and the OA
has been filed in the garb of Public Interest Litigation.
Mr. Janmeajaya Dash, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that earlier the petitioners approached this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 33396 of 2022 to quash the order dated
02.12.2022 passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Employees State
Insurance Corporation under Annexure-6 with a further direction to
the opposite party to issue an open advertisement for filling the post
of Juniors Medical Laboratory Technologist by direct recruitment as
per Recruitment Regulations Rules, 2022. This Court vide judgment
and order dated 07.02.2025 has been pleased to hold as follows:-
"13. On a conjoint reading of the Article 323(A) and
the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and the
notification of the Organization of ESIC under
category D in terms of the "Rules, 1993" as noted
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that
the Writ Petition before this Court is not maintainable.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
15. Interim order stands vacated.
16. The Petitioners are at liberty to pursue his
remedy before the appropriate Tribunal.
17. In the event such an application is filed, the
learned Tribunal shall take into account that the
Petitioners bonafide was pursuing the matter before
this Court."
Learned counsel submits that in pursuance of such order
passed by this Court in the writ petition, the petitioners approached
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A.,
but the learned tribunal has been pleased to hold that the petitioners
have no locus standi to file the OA, which was not proper and
justified.
On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
following observations have been made by the learned Tribunal
while adjudicating the Original Application:-
"8. It may be noted that the applicants have sought to
quash the Office Memorandum Z-17012/4/2021-MED-
VI-Part(3) dated 02.12.2022 wherein the respondents
department directed for filling up of the posts of Lab.
Assistant as per the Recruitment Regulation published
vide Gazette dated 21.05.2011 in respect of the
vacancies arising upto 07.01.2022, i.e. prior to revised
regulations came into effect, in compliance of the order
of the CAT, PB, New Delhi dated 04.08.2022 in OA
2865/2021. In such a situation, as per the law, the
applicants in OA No. 2865/2021 should be made as
parties in this OA but they have not been made
opposite parties. Thus, this OA suffers from non-
joinder and mis-joinder of necessary/proper parties.
9. The respondents' department seek to fill up the post
by way of promotion. The applicants being the
outsiders/not the employees of the respondents
department, obviously, have no locus standi to question
the notification for effecting promotion. Hence, the
grievance of the applicants falls flat for the above
reasons."
In the operative portion, the learned Tribunal has held as
follows :-
"21. We have gone through the counter filed by the
respondents department before the Hon'ble High Court
of Orissa and the final order in the writ petition and we
find that in the counter the respondents department
objected the very maintainability of the Writ Petition
after coming into effect the AT Act, 1985 and the
Hon'ble High Court of Orissa after taking provision of
AT Act and the decision in L.Chandra Kumar (supra)
disposed of the writ petition holding that the writ
petition was not maintainable, however, in the said
order it was observed that in the event such an
application is filed the Tribunal shall take into account
that the petitioners' bonafide for pursuing the matter
before the Court wherefrom the Tribunal can take the
clue that the delay should not come on the way of the
OA but there is no such observation that this Tribunal
shall entertain this OA irrespective of the facts and law
discussed above.
22. In view of the facts, law and discussions
made above, it is completely established that the
applicants have no locus standi to file this OA before
this Tribunal and this OA is filed in the garb of Public
Interest Litigation.
23. Hence, this OA as well as MA 84/2025 stand
dismissed. But, taking into consideration that the
applicants are unemployed, we do not like to impose
any costs."
There is no dispute that the petitioners are not the employees
of the respondent - department and the prayer of the petitioners
before the learned Tribunal was to challenge the promotion order
passed in favour of some of the employees of the respondents.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal is quite justified in holding that the
petitioners are outsiders and therefore, they have no locus standi to
question the notification for effecting promotion.
The contention of the learned counsel that merely because this
Court has passed the order in the Writ Petition giving liberty to the
petitioners to approach the Tribunal does not mean that the Tribunal
committed any error in considering the locus standi of the petitioners
to maintain the original application. This has been rightly done by
the Tribunal.
Accordingly, we find no infirmity or illegality in the
impugned order, the same is dismissed.
If the petitioners are aggrieved, they can seek the alternative
remedy.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Sukanta/Puspa
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 24-Mar-2025 14:36:46
