[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Patro vs State Of Odisha And on 11 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19769 of 2023
Ranjan Kumar Patro .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Prusty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. T. Patnaik,
Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 11.02.2026
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dated 15.05.2023, so passed by Opp.
Party No.2 under Annexure-13. Vide the said order, claim
of the petitioner to get the benefit of appointment
pursuant to Annexure-4 was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
basing on the advertisement issued by the Odisha Public
Service Commission (in short "Commission") vide
Advertisement No.08 of 2015-16 under Annexure-4,
petitioner made the application as a disabled candidate
and in the said application, petitioner enclosed the
// 2 //
disability certificate issued in his favour under Annexure-
1.
4.1. It is contended that by accepting the application so
also the disability certificate, petitioner was allowed to
participate in the selection process. However, when he
was not allowed to appear the personality test, he
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.4548(C) of
2016.
4.2. Pursuant to the interim order passed by the
Tribunal on 09.01.2017, petitioner was allowed to appear
the personality test. However, his result was not
published, because of the nature of interim order passed
by the Tribunal on 09.01.2017.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the aforesaid original application on being transferred to
this Court was disposed of as infructuous vide order
dated 17.08.2022. Order dated 17.08.2022 so passed in
W.P.C(OAC) No.4548 of 2016 reads as follows:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that by efflux of time, the writ petition has become
infructuous.
3. In view of the above submission, the writ
petition stands disposed of as infructuous."
4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
after disposal of the earlier Writ Petition, petitioner made
a detailed representation on 20.01.2023 under Annexure-
10, inter alia with a prayer to publish his result as
// 3 //
pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal on
09.01.2017, he appeared the personality test.
4.5. It is contended that when such representation of the
petitioner was not considered, he approached this Court
by filing W.P.(C) No.9423 of 2023. This Court vide order
dated 05.04.2023 under Annexure-12, when directed for
consideration of the petitioner's claim, the same was
rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-13.
4.6. It is contended that on the ground that petitioner's
disability is temporary in nature and not permanent as
per the certificate issued under Annexure-1, petitioner
was held not eligible to get the benefit. It is accordingly
contended that since basing on the certificate produced
by the petitioner under Annexure-1, petitioner was
allowed to participate in the recruitment process and also
appeared the personality test pursuant to the interim
order passed by the Tribunal on 09.01.2017, the
Commission be directed to publish the result of the
petitioner and take consequential action in
recommending his name to get the benefit of appointment
with quashing of the impugned order dated 15.05.2023
under Annexure-13.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission on
the other hand contended that pursuant to the
advertisement issued under Annexure-4, petitioner
though was allowed to participate in the selection process
but when it came to the knowledge of the Commission
// 4 //
that petitioner's disability is temporary in nature and the
minimum requirement to get the benefit of appointment is
40% permanent, he was not allowed to take the
personality test.
5.1. Challenging such action of the Commission,
petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.
No.4548(C) of 2016. Pursuant to the interim order passed
by the Tribunal on 09.01.2017, petitioner though was
allowed to take the personality test, but his result was not
published taking into account the nature of interim order
passed. However, it is contended that original application
after being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide
order dated 17.08.2022 and the Writ Petition was
disposed of as having become infructuous, basing on the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in that case.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the claim
made by the petitioner in W.P.C(OAC) No.4548 of 2016
was disposed of as having become infructuous, petitioner
could not have made a fresh representation under
Annexure-10, claiming similar benefit.
5.3. It is accordingly contended that petitioner's claim
has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that
basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-4,
petitioner made the application as a disabled candidate,
// 5 //
by enclosing the disability certificate issued under
Annexure-1. Though it is not disputed that petitioner's
application was entertained and he was allowed to
participate in the selection process, but at the time of
holding the personality test, petitioner when was not
allowed to appear on the ground that his disability is
temporary in nature, petitioner approached the Tribunal
by filing O.A. No.4548(C) of 2016.
6.1. Pursuant to the interim order passed by the
Tribunal on 09.01.2017, petitioner though was allowed to
appear the personality test, but his result was not
published because of the nature of interim order passed
on 09.01.2017. However, it is found that after transfer of
the matter to this Court, the said original application
being renumbered as W.P.C(OAC) No.4548 of 2016, was
disposed of as having become infructuous basing on the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in the said case.
6.2. Since similar claim made by the petitioner in the
earlier Writ Petition, was disposed of as having become
infructuous the present writ petition with similar prayer
is not entertainable. Secondly no document has been
enclosed, showing that the disability of the petitioner is
permanent to the extent of 40%.
6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no
illegality or irregularity with the impugned order
dtd.15.05.2023 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under
// 6 //
Annexure-13, and accordingly is not inclined to interfere
with the same.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
