The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13904 of 2025 Nilamani Polei ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 15.05.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 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 circumstances, it is this Hon'ble Court may that therefore, prayed graciously be pleased to: i) direct the Opp. Parties to give appointment to the Petitioner in the post of Attendant, as per Govt. Resolution, dated 05.05.2023, on the basis of length of working experience as Gomitra, as the petitioner is an eligible seniormost Gomitra, given his willingness, whereas juniors to the Petitioner (Opp. Parties No.5 to 11) have been selected and thereby quash the Order, dtd. 06.05.2025 vide Annexure-6, so far as the Opp. Parties No.5 to 11 under Puri District, are concerned; Page 1 of 4. (ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, referred to the Government Resolution dated 5th May, 2023 of the Fisheries & ARD Department, Government of Odisha under Annexure-4 to the writ petition. By referring to the aforesaid Resolution, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a policy decision has been taken with regard to the appointment of the Gomitra. He further submitted that the rule governing the appointment of Gomitras has been amended by virtue of the aforesaid resolution of the Fisheries & ARD Department, Government of Odisha. Accordingly, Rule-4(1) has been substituted by the following provisions:- “For selection to the post of Attendant, the Selection Committee constituted under rule 1 shall arrange the names of the Go-mitras basing on their length of working experience as Go-mitra who are continuing as such by the date of advertisement and appointment shall be made accordingly in the existing vacancies of concerned district and if any Go-mitra is left for being appointed in the post of Attendant in that district, he may be appointed in other districts where any post of Attendant is lying vacant as per the willingness given by him. Provided that a Go-mitra can give his willingness to be appointed in other district by offering number of options.” 5. In view of the aforesaid amendment of Rule-4, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Gomitras, who have been working under the Government, are to be given regular appointment taking into consideration their working experience against the existing vacancies. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime although the Opposite Parties have called the juniors to the Petitioner in the common gradation list, however the Page 2 of 4. Petitioner has not been summoned for verification of certificate. 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the common list under Annexure-5 to the writ petition and contended that the name of the Petitioner appears against Serial No.2. He further submitted that some of the persons, who are below the Petitioner are rendered less than 17 years of service i.e. less than the service rendered by the Petitioner in the meantime as Gomitra, have been called upon for verification of certificate. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Parties have acted in discriminatory manner by calling the juniors to the Petitioner for certificate verification ignoring the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by arbitrary and discriminatory conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction, however taking into consideration the grievance of the Petitioner involved in the present writ petition and further considering the fact that the Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties before approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition, he will have no objection in the event this Court grants an opportunity to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance by filing a representation taking therein all the grounds along with supporting documents with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the same in accordance with the rules within a stipulated period of time. 8. Having 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 Page 3 of 4. Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the period of service already rendered by the Petitioner and the fact that juniors to the Petitioner have been called upon for verification of certificate and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of filing such representation. The final decision so taken on such representation be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Debasis (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-May-2025 11:04:51 Page 4 of 4.