The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9295 of 2024 Sarala Prasad Swain ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Niranjan Lenka ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Engineer In Chief, Water Resources Dept. 3) Chief Engineer And Basin Manager,indravati And Kolab Basin 4) Collector, Koraput 5) Supdt. Engineer, Upper Kolab Head Work Div. 6) Supdt. Engineer, Upper Kolab Irrigation Div. 7) Executive Engineer, Ukl Div. No.iv CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 22.04.2024 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 appearing for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed to thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer : “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the Writ Application, issue Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ or writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the Page 1 of 5. Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the aforesaid impugned order daed 24.11.2023 passed by the Chief Engineer and Basin Manager Indravati & Kolab Basin Barinipur, the Opp.Party No.3 vide annexure-6 shall not be quashed and why they shall not be directed to give appointment to the Petitioner under OCS(RA) Rues, 1990 immediately taking into consideration of the educational qualification of the Petitioner. In the event of the Opp.Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause said rule be made absolute. And further pleased to pass any order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the father of the Petitioner while working under Opposite Party No.3 died in harness on 30.09.2014 leaving behind his legal heirs including the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after the death of the deceased Government employee the financial condition of the family was in distress condition. He further contended that the mother and brother of the present Petitioner were ailing at the time when the Petitioner made his application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in the year 2014. Although no specific date as to when the application has been made, has been provided, however in Pargraph- 5 of the Writ Petition it has been indicated that the Petitioner has made application for appointment under RA Scheme in the year 2014. It is further contended that after submitting the application, the mother of the Petitioner, who had the preferential right was examined medically and found to be unfit for any Government job. The medical certificate in the aforesaid aspect was obtained from the Medical Board on 29.08.2015. However, the Opposite Parties sat over the Page 2 of 5. matter for a long time and ultimately the Opposite Party No.3 has rejected the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 24.11.2023 under Annexure-6 by applying the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 and the GA & PG Department Notification dated 17.02.2020. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party No.3 in rejecting the application of the Petitioner under OCS(RA) Rule, 2020, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel at the outset objected to the very maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the Petitioner has not disclosed the date on which he has submitted his application for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. He further contended that since the Petitioner has not disclosed the date of application, it is difficult to come to a conclusion under which Rule, the application of the Petitioner should have been considered by the Opposite Parties. He further contended that in the aforesaid circumstances, the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in considering the application of the Petitioner under OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 which was in force at the time of considering the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the Petitioner could not secure the desired mark as is required under the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 his application has been rejected thereunder under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition. 6. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of the learned Additional Government Advocate, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality by rejecting the application of the Petitioner under OCS(RA) Rule,2020 and the GA & P.G. Department Notification dated 17.02.2020. In the aforesaid Page 3 of 5. context, learned counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the judgments in Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1, 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, He further submitted that in the case of Biswajit Swain v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.5214 of 2021 decided on 31.10.2023, the Rule 6(9) of the OCS(RA) Rule, 2020 has been defclared ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in rejecting the application for the Petitioner for appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is unsustainable in law. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute with regard to factual aspect of the matter, however taking into consideration the objection raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court found that the Petitioner has not mentioned the actual date of application. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing that the Opposite Party No.3 to first ascertain the date of application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. In the event it is found that the application has been filed in the year 2014 as has been stated in the Writ Petition, then the Opposite Party No.3 shall proceed further to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the judgments referred to hereinabove. In such eventuality, it is further directed that the application of the Petitioner, shall be considered Page 4 of 5. under the OCS(RA) Rule, 1990 and be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid direction, the impugned rejection order under Annexure-6 is hereby set aside so far as it relates to the Petitioner. The final decision so taken pursuant to the aforesaid direction be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 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: 25-Apr-2024 10:03:29