Orissa High Court

Sri Basanta Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 8 September, 2025

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P.(C) No.19639 of 2020
          In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
     the Constitution of India, 1950.
                                      ----
         Sri Basanta Kumar Sahoo             ....            Petitioner

                                      -versus-
           State of Odisha, represented                   ....       Opposite Parties
           through its Principal Secretary
           in the School & Mass Education
           Department & Others

                           Advocates Appeared in this case

                    For Petitioner         -      M/s. Sameer Kumar Das,
                                                  P.K. Behera & N. Jena
                                                  (Advocates)

                    For Opp. Parties -            Mr.S.K. Jee,
                                                  Additional Government Advocate

           CORAM
                  MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Date of Hearing & Judgment : 08.09.2024
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

The Petitioner, who had fought a slew of petitions before

this Court, has structured his prayer as under:-

"Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the office order no. 2025 dtd: 22.07.2020 of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 under Annexure-9 and direct the Opposite Parties to extend all the benefits

of a Sikshya Sahayak, Junior Teacher and regular Teacher to the petitioner from the dates his batch mates or his juniors selected from the same selection pursuant to advertisement under Annexure-1 have availed the same i.e. Sikshya Sahayak from 16.12.2006, Junior Teacher from 16.12.2009 and regular Teacher from 16.12.2012 and grant all consequential service and financial benefits as that has been paid to those persons including his seniority in the cadre of Level-V of the services within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once name

of a candidate rightly appears in the select list, selection process

having been duly accomplished, he will have some right to

consideration for appointment, subject to all just exceptions. The

advertisement was dated 14.10.2006. Petitioner, along with

others, was in the fray of selection and final select list came to be

appeared on 16.12.2006. The petitioner figured at Sl. No.4 under

SEBC category. However, he was not given appointment. The

petitioner had filed W.P(C) No.13075 of 2007 wherein a Co-

ordinate Bench, vide order dated 31.10.2007, directed

consideration of his case. Thereafter, he filed CONTC No.409 of

2008 and by that time, his candidature was rejected by Collector,

Cuttack vide order dated 20.05.2008. That led to filing of W.P.(C)

No.28727 of 2011 wherein another Co-ordinate Bench, on

28.08.2012, directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the

light of the decision of this Court in Chandramani Jena V. State of

Orissa, 2007 (II) OLR 577. Thereafter, the Collector, Cuttack

passed order dated 23.02.2013 to offer appointment to the

petitioner subject to approval of the State Government. In the

meanwhile, against order dated 28.08.2012 passed in W.P.(C)

No.28727 of 2011, Writ Appeal No.267 of 2014 was filed by the

State and the Division Bench of this Court negatived the same

vide order dated 28.03.2018. Even thereafter, the appointment

alluded the petitioner eventually resulting into he filing another

case in W.P.(C) No.12624 of 2017, which came to be allowed by

yet another Co-ordinate Bench on 02.08.2018 and ultimately, the

petitioner secured appointment order on 03.08.2018. Therefore,

counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the

petitioner should be treated retrospective effect from the date on

which the others in the selected list were given with all

consequential benefits.

3. Learned AGA, having entered appearance for the opposite

parties, has filed the counter affidavit resisting the petition inter

alia contending that when all vacancies were existed in terms of

the select list, no post was available in which the petitioner could

be accommodated and therefore, to do justice, he has been

accorded the appointment order although bit belatedly. When the

appointment order is issued, only then the contract of service

begins and in course of time, it attains the status vide Union of

India v. Tulsiram Patel; AIR 1985 SC 1416. That being the

position, the benefit cannot be claimed for pre-status period. So

contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant

indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:-

4.1. There is no dispute that the recruitment process began with

the advertisement dated 14.10.2006, in which the petitioner and

others had participated. The final select list was drawn on

16.12.2006 wherein the petitioner's name figured at Sl. No.4 under

SEBC category. Appointment orders were issued to all others and

step-motherly that was not issued to the petitioner.

4.2. The petitioner had to file too many legal battles, the

particulars of which have been furnished above and at the long

last, he secured the appointment order only in August, 2018

absolutely, no fault is attributable to him but to the officials. For

fault of the officials, a citizen cannot be punished in a welfare

State, which is constitutionally organized. Therefore, the

contention of the learned AGA cannot be fully accepted.

4.3. All the above having been said, certain things have

happened and at this length of time, it is difficult to up-set the

same, inasmuch as if up-set, more mischief they would breed than

doing justice to others. To that extent, learned AGA is right in

telling the Court that no benefit of seniority nor of monetary

values can be accorded to the petitioner, appointment itself being

of 03.08.2018. That being said, the minimum benefit of counting his

service for all other practical purposes cannot be denied.

4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in pressing into

service the decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. Pritilata

Nanda; (2010) 11 SCC 674 wherein Paragraphs-21 & 22 read as

under:-

"21. We also agree with the High Court that once the candidature of the respondent was accepted by the concerned authorities and she was allowed to participate in the process of selection i.e., written test and viva voce, it was not open to them to turn around and question her entitlement to be considered for appointment as per her placement in the merit list on the specious ground that her name had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. In our considered view, by denying appointment to the respondent despite her selection and placement in the merit list, the appellants violated her right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.

22. However, there is a small aberration in the operative part of the impugned order. While the High Court was fully justified in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent from the date persons lower in merit were appointed, but it is not possible to confirm the direction given for payment of full salary with retrospective effect. In our view, the High Court should have directed the appellants to notionally fix the pay of the respondent with effect from the date person placed at Sl. No.12 at the merit list was appointed and give her all monetary benefits with effect from that date."

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in part; a

Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated

22.07.2020 issued by the Collector-Cum-C.E.O., Zilla Parishad,

Cuttack-opposite party no.3 at Annexure-9; a Writ of Mandamus

issues to the said opposite party to grant the benefit of notional

service to the petitioner sans any monetary or seniority benefits, so

that he shall be deemed to have been regularized in service with

effect from the date, i.e., 16.12.2012, when his immediate junior

figuring in the select list got such regularization. It is again made

clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the seniority

against anyone nor any monetary benefits on the basis of this

order.