The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12622 of 2025 Deepak Kumar Mishra ..... Petitioner -versus- Orissa Staff Selection Commission, represented through its Chariman, Bhubaneswar and others Represented By Adv. – Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty ..... Opposite Parties Mr. Suryakanta Parhi, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.05.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an writ in appropriate nature directing OSSC Opp. Party No.1 & 2 to prepare a composite merit list of all the candidates recommended against the post of Pharmacist under two separate Notifications Page 1 of 5. a in of issued by OSSC vide No.2008/OSSC dated 23.05.2017 and Notification No.518/OSSC dated single pursuance 02.02.2024 Advertisement No.3241/OSSC dated 04.07.2015 forthwith and forward the same to Director E.S.I. of Opp. Party representation under Annexure-5 for appropriate action of the end of Opp. Party No.3 without further delay. consideration no.3 on And pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that pursuant to advertisement dated 04.07.2015 under Annexure-1, 17 posts of Pharmacists were published which includes two posts of Pharmacists in UR (M) Category and one post in UR(W) Category. After conclusion of the selection procedure, the OSSC recommended 7 candidates including one candidate belonging to the UR (PWD) Category. He further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.347(C)/2017, one post UR Category was not filled up. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that being aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of the Opposite Parties in not recommending the name of the Petitioner, he was eligible for such appointment, the Petitioner initially approached the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing Page 2 of 5. O.A. No.347(C)/2017. After abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.347 of 2017. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2023 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner against the UR (Male) Category of Pharmacist Post and to recommend the case of the Petitioner in the event the Petitioner is found suitable for appointment in the post of Pharmacist. 5. After disposal of the above noted writ petition, the Petitioner again approached the Opposite Parties and the OSSC found the Petitioner suitable for appointment. Accordingly, his name was recommended to the Government. On the recommendation of the OSSC, the Petitioner has been given appointment w.e.f. 02.02.2024. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that such appointment of the Petitioner pursuant to the Notification dated 02.02.2024 under Annexure-4 reveals that the name of the Petitioner has been recommended pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.07.2015 as well as in continuance of Commission’s Notification dated 23.05.2017 and Notification dated 15.07.2017 as well as in obedience to Order No.1 dated 19.01.2023 passed by this Court in WPC(OAC) No.347 of 2017 and Order No.01 dated 19.10.2023 passed in W.A. No.2074 of 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that although the Petitioner was given appointment in the post of Page 3 of 5. Pharmacist, however, inter se seniority among the candidates who were selected and recruited pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.07.2015 has not been fixed. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing representation dated 20.12.2024 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition, however no decision has been taken on such representation. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, considering the pleadings made in the writ petition and in the event the representation of the Petitioner has not been disposed of as of now, the present writ petition can be disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 20.12.2024 under Annexure-5 in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time and he will have no objection to the same.. 7. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, further keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in the present writ petition, this Court, while disposing of the present writ petition, directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 20.12.2024 Page 4 of 5. under Annexure-5 to the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the representation shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final order so passed on such representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. It is further made clear that while deciding the inter se seniority, if the Opposite Party No.1 feels necessary that an opportunity of hearing is to be given to the candidates who are likely to be affected to such order, then such opportunity be granted to the parties who are likely to be affected including the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3, before passing the final order. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 12-May-2025 18:44:19 Page 5 of 5.