The High Court
Case Details
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.244 of 2024 (Arising out of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.27479 of 2022.) 1.State of Odisha 2.Director of Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar 3.Collector & District Magistrate, Cuttack 4.District Education Officer, Cuttack 5.Block Education Officer, Cuttack -versus- … Appellants Arup Kumar Routray …. Respondent Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Appellants :Mr.Saswat Das, AGA For Respondent : Mr.Sanat Kumar Das, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO .………………………………………………………………………………….. Date of Judgment : 16.01.2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………. SAVITRI RATHO, J. In this intra court appeal, the appellants – State and its officers have challenged the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.27479 of 2022 under Annexure-3. 2. The respondent-petitioner had filed the writ application with the following prayer : W.A. No.244 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 “It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordship’s would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, the records may kindly be called for and the opposite parties be called upon to show cause, as to why they shall not be directed to appoint the petitioner in Government Job under RA Scheme as enacted by the Government of Odisha. And if no cause or insufficient cause is shown by the opp. parties, they may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner into Government job under RA Scheme expeditiously for the interest of justice.” 3. The case of the respondent-petitioner in the writ application in short is that, his father Late- Anjan Kumar Routray died on 21.02.2003 while he was working as Assistant Teacher at Khannagar High School, Cuttack, leaving behind his widow and his children. The petitioner had applied for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistant Scheme alongwith all required documents before the Collector, Cuttack in 2003 and the application and documents had been forwarded to the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack Circle, now DEO, Cuttack on 10.11.2003. The DEO had forwarded his application alongwith all documents to the Director of Secondary Education on 31.01.2004 which was received on 09.02.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner visited the office of the Director on several occasions, to enquire about his application but was assured that the same W.A. No.244 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 would be disposed of at a short date. In 2020 the petitioner learnt about appointments made in the previous years, for which he sent a reminder on 12.08.2020 to the opposite party No.2 and on 16.11.2020 again submitted application and supporting documents and had sent reminders, the last reminder having been sent on 04.04.2022. 4. The District Education Officer, Cuttack (appellant No.4) had filed a preliminary counter affidavit in the writ petition, where it had been specifically stated therein that the petitioner had submitted an application way back in 2003. Thereafter, he remained silent for years together and only after the new rule – The OCS (RA) Rules 2020 came into force, he applied afresh on 16.11.2020 in accordance with those rules and the same was duly considered. But he was found ineligible by the screening committee, as he had secured less marks. It has been further stated that the claim of the petitioner for appointment considering the first application cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches as it is a well settled principle of law that rehabilitation appointment is not a matter of right and if a family has survived for a substantial period after death of any government employee, then in such a case appointment on compassionate ground cannot be permissible under the law. 5.
Decision
The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ application on W.A. No.244 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 06.12.2022 without referring to the case of the petitioner or the affidavit filed by opposite party No 4, the District Education Officer, by accepting the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that his case is covered by the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy and directing the opposite parties to consider his case in the light of the judgment in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra) and pass appropriate order. 6. It is apparent from the counter affidavit that the application of the petitioner filed on 16.11.2020 has been considered under the OCS (RA) Rules 2020, and he was found ineligible on merit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-State has submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-3 of the writ appeal is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the learned Single Judge without adjudicating the case on merit as to whether the respondent is entitled to be appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme after all these years has disposed of the same directing his case to be considered in the light of decision rendered in Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra), where the Supreme Court had categorically held that such order had been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open. He has also submitted that although the respondent had applied for appointment under Rehabilitation Scheme in 2003 but he was obviously not in need of any job W.A. No.244 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 for his sustenance as he did not pursue the application for 17 years. It is his case that he started making queries in 2020 and resubmitted his application. He submits that the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and others: 2023 SCC Online SC 219 in similar facts has held that appointment on compassionate ground after several years will have no redeeming purpose. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that, the State authorities did not take any steps to consider his case for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in spite of all steps taken by the respondent from time to time for which the respondent finally submitted the representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa in the year 2022, and drew his attention for speedy disposal of his case as he had applied for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme since 2003 but due to negligence and inaction of the State authorities, no appointment has been made in his favour. He submits that his case should be considered in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa and others : 2022 SCC Online SC 684, which has been referred to in the case of Debabrata Tiwari where inaction of State has been deprecated. 9. We find from a perusal of the impugned order that neither the case W.A. No.244 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 of the petitioner nor the stand of the State has been considered and the writ application has been disposed of accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is covered by the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy (supra). 10. After considering the submissions of both counsel, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable for interference as the relevant facts have not been taken into account especially the fact that a decision had been taken on the application of the petitioner. 11. The order dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No.27479 of 2022 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. 12. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. 13. The writ petition is restored to file. Let it be listed before the assigned Bench. Chief Justice. I agree. (Savitri Ratho) Judge (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 16-Jan-2025 19:00:06 Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated 16th January, 2025/Bichi W.A. No.244 of 2024 Page 6 of 6