The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1887 of 2024 Saroj Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. S.Behera, Advocate State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties -versus- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.Das, A.G.A. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 01.02.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, it is humbly therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs by quashing the letter dated 22.09.2018 and letter dated 22.04.2020 issued by the Opp.party No.4 so far as petitioner is concerned under Annexure-6 and 7 respectively; And further be pleased to direct the Opp.Party No.4 to consider and issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Rules, 1990, taking into account the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in malayananda Sethy’s Case under Anexure-9 forthwith; Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper.” // 2 // 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 25.03.2015. Thereafter, the family of the deceased Government employee was left in indispensible condition. Accordingly, the petitioner being one of the legal heirs applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is having +2 Arts degree with ITI and accordingly apply for appointment on class 3 post under Opposite Party No.4 while within the limitation prescribed in the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that such application of the petitioner was kept pending for a long time. Finally the application submitted by the petitioner for an appointment on compassionate ground was initially rejected by the evaluation committee vide order dated 22.09.2018 Annexure-6. Thereafter, the petitioner was again asked to submit an application under the 2020 Rules under Annexure-8 to the writ application. After initially rejecting of the application of the petitioner under Annexure-6, the DFO Bhubaneswar, North Division, Opposite Party No.4 again intimated the RCCF, Berhampur circle vide letter dated 22.04.2020 under Annexure-7 to consider the pending RA applications. The list appended under letter under Annexure-7 includes the name of the present petitioner at serial No.1. While the matter stood thus the petitioner was again communicated vide letter dated 31.12.2020 of the Opposite party No.4 to make a fresh application pursuant to the GA & PG department notification dated 17.02.2020. In the aforesaid factual background learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, State of West Bengal-v.-Debabrata Tiwri reported in // 3 // (2023 (3) SCALE-557,Suchitra Bal v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.2081 of 2021 & batch decided on 27.06.2023 and State of Odisha and others vs. Bindu Sagar Samantaray in W.A.No.810 of 2021 the application of the petitioner is to be considered O.C.S. (RA) Rules,1990. He also referred to the judgment in Biswajit Swain vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 wherein this Court has held the Rule 6(9) of the O.C.S.(RA) Rules, 2020 to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the said rule has been struck down. In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules 1990. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the initial application of the petitioner was considered and he was asked to appear in the computer skill test. Since he could not qualify the computer skill test, the evaluation committee has rejected the application of the petitioner by virtue of order under Annexure-6 to the writ application. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that the Opposite parties have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment to any class 3 post. However, his case again been taken up for consideration under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules, 2020 for appointment against Group-D post, subject to petitioner’s suitability and eligibility. However, the petitioner has not responded to the letter issued by the Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ application is premature and as such the same is liable to dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective // 4 // parties, on a careful examination of the factual backgrounds of the present case well as materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgments referred to hereinabove, accordingly, the same is required to be considered under the O.C.S.(RA) Rules 1990. Therefore, the letter under Anenxure-8 asking the petitioner to submit a fresh application pursuant to the GA & PG Department notification dated 17.02.2020 is without jurisdiction. In such view of the matter this Court is of the considered view that the letter under Annexure-8 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. Further, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the O.C.S. (RA) Rules 1990 for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground against any of the available posts taking into consideration the eligibility and suitability of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Any decision taken by the opposite parties to be communicated to the petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-Feb-2024 18:44:52