Orissa High Court
Rajanikanta Patel vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 21557 of 2025
Rajanikanta Patel ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.09.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the
Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
"Under these facts and circumstances as stated
herein above, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit this writ
application, issue Rule Nisi in the nature of appropriate
writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders calling upon
the Opposite Party Authorities, more particularly the
Opposite Party No. 2 to show cause as to why the
Petitioner's appointment shall not be treated
retrospectively, and why the Petitioner shall not be
bestowed with all the benefits including his promotional
benefits from 2011 along with arrears and why no action
shall be taken against the Opposite Party authorities for
hampering the legitimate expectations of the Petitioner and
why such action of the Opposite Party No. 2 shall not be
declared as illegal and arbitrary and against the interest of
justice and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause and/or
show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute
against the Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice;
And further be pleased to pass any other
order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner shall
as in duty bound ever pray."
4. It is contended that basing on the advertisement issued under
Annexure-1 in the year 2011, because of wrong award of mark,
Petitioner while was not provided with the appointment, but one
Ranjan Kumar Jit was so appointed on 04.04.2012.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
challenging his non-selection because of wrong award of mark and
consequential appointment made in favour of the aforesaid Ranjan
Kumar Jit, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.
880(C) of 2012. The Tribunal vide order dtd.18.04.2016 under
Annexure-6 when directed the authority concerned to cause an
enquiry with regard to the award of mark given to the Petitioner and
selection of the aforesaid Ranjan Kumar Jit, the matter was inquired
into and PCCF, Odisha vide order dtd.25.08.2016 under Annexure-7,
held the appointment of Ranjan Kumar Jit as illegal and also held the
Petitioner entitled to get 68 marks instead of 66 marks. While holding
so, PCCF, Odisha also directed to prepare a select list afresh and to
provide appointment to the Petitioner.
4.2. It is contended that basing on such order passed by the PCCF,
Odisha under Annexure-7, when the aforesaid Ranjan Kumar Jit was
issued with the order of termination, he approached this Court by
filing W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3125 of 2016. The said writ petition was
dismissed vide Judgment dtd.20.09.2022 under Annexure-8 and after
dismissal of the writ petition, Petitioner was appointed vide order
dtd.05.12.2022 under Annexure-9.
4.3. It is contended that since because of wrong award of mark,
Petitioner was not selected and in his place the person so appointed,
was ultimately terminated vide order dtd.25.08.2016, which has been
affirmed by this Court in its judgment dtd.20.09.2022, Petitioner is
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment from the date
the aforesaid Ranjan Kumar Jit was so appointed on 04.04.2012 or at
best from the date order dt.25.08.2016 was passed. It is accordingly
contended that the date of appointment of the Petitioner be antedated
to 04.04.2012 with extension of all service and financial benefits or
at least from the date PCCF, Odisha passed the order dt.25.08.2016
under Annexure-7.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the relief as claimed
in the writ petition was never made by the Petitioner before the
authority. It is accordingly contended that instead of moving the
authority concerned to get the benefit, since the present writ petition
has been filed, the same is not entertainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the writ
petition, permits the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No. 2 to get the
benefit of appointment from the date of appointment of the aforesaid
Ranjan Kumar Jit or at least from the date order dtd.25.08.2016 was
passed by the said authority.
6.1. It is observed that if any such application is moved before Opp.
Party No. 2 within a period of three (3) weeks hence, the said Opp.
Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a
further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such
application. However, if the claim of the Petitioner will be allowed
on consideration, the benefits if any be extended on notional basis
only.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
