The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.5944 of 2025 Bharat Rana ..... Petitioner -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Commandant General,home Guards,ctc 3) Commandant,home Guards,bolangir 4) Inspector In Charge,kantabanji P.s., Represented By Adv. - Siba Prasad Swain ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –Mr.U.C.Jena,ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 04.03.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to: i) All this Writ Petition ii) Issue Rule NISI, asking the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to re- enrolment/re-appointment the Petitioner to the rank of Home Guard by taking the appeal order dated 20.12.2013 vide annexure-3 and if the Page 1 of 5. Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, issue a writ of then mandamus in nature, thereby directing the Commandant, Home Guards, Bolangir (Opp.Party No.3) to re-enroll/re-appoint the Petitioner to the rank of Home Guard by taking appeal order dated 20.12.2023 vide Annexure- 3 within a stipulated period. iii) And/or pass an order(s), direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard in Kantabanji P.S. in the year 2006. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared in the basic course training from 01.09.2007 to 15.10.2007. Since the Petitioner remained absent from his duties, the Opposite Party no.3 discharged the Petitioner from service vide order dated 09.04.2012. Being aggrieved by such discharge order, the Petitioner approached the appellate authority i.e. Opposite Party no.2, however the Appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by such order of the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.16804 of 2012. A Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition vide order dated 29.08.2013 quashed the order passed by the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter for rehearing of the appeal after providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed in the previous Writ Petition, the Petitioner again approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority Page 2 of 5. upon hearing the Petitioner was pleased to allow his appeal vide order dated 20.12.2013 under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. On perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-3, it is observed that while allowing the appeal of the Petitioner, the Appellate authority directed the Commandant, Home Guards, Bolangir to consider his enrolment as Home Guard in the event the Petitioner submits an application in prescribed format as per Rule-4 of OHG Rules, 1962 and such appointment shall be subject to suitability of the Petitioner for such post. After disposal of the appeal, the Petitioner approached the Commandant of Home Guard, Bolangir district, however no action was taken on the order passed by the appellate authority under Anexure-3 on the ground that the State Government has imposed a ban on fresh recruitment of Home Guard. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that since the Petitioner was initially appointed as Home Guard and challenging his discharge order he has approached the Appellate authority, the Commandant, Home Guard, Bolangir should have reinstated the Petitioner in service as the order discharging the Petitioner was set aside by the Appellate authority. He further contended that although the ban order was there however such ban order has been lifted in the meantime and fresh recruitment are to be made under Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties be directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the order passed by the authority under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. Page 3 of 5. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that while disposing of the appeal the Appellate Authority had issued a specific direction dated 20.12.2023 under Annexure-3, however since the State Government imposed a ban order, the case of the Petitioner was not considered by the Commandant of Home Guard, Bolangir. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality since at that time there was a ban order operating on the recruitment of Home Guards. He also submitted that the Petitioner without approaching the Commandant, Home Guard has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case as well as the documents annexed to the Writ Petition and keeping in view the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-3, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party No.3, Commandant, Home Guard, Bhubaneswar by filing a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds within two weeks along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation keeping in view the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-3 and pass a speaking and reasoned order within 8 (eight ) weeks from the date of Page 4 of 5. communication of certified copy of this order. Final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Mar-2025 19:39:45