The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.907 of 2025 Krupajal SHG, Balasore State of Odisha and others -Versus- …. …. Appellant Respondents Advocates appeared in these cases: For Appellant For Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amitav Das, Senior Advocate along with M/s. B. Pradhan, K.K. Patel and A.K. Dash, Advocates : Mr. Sanjay Rath, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 M/s. Satyajit Mohapatra, K. Mohanty, A. Ray, A. Pradhan and K. Sethi, Advocates for Respondent No.5 CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 9th September, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. The instant writ appeal arises from the order dated 7th May, 2025 passed in WP(C) No.12666 of 2025, wherein the writ petitioner challenged the order dated 3rd May, 2025 passed by the Page 1 of 7
Decision
Collector, Balasore, by which the engagement of the writ petitioner was recalled, as extinguished. 2. Admittedly, the selection process for engagement of Take Home Ration (THR) was ensued in the year 2023, wherein the appellant participated but could not emerge successful therefrom. Respondent nos.5 and 6 were selected and engaged for the financial period 2023-24. Immediately, the challenge was thrown to the selection process and also the selection of respondent nos.5 & 6 by the appellant in WP(C) No.20670 of 2023. While the said writ petition came up for final disposal on 24th June, 2024, it was pointed out by the State as well as the said respondents that the tenure of the engagement has expired by efflux of time and, therefore, the substantive prayer of quashing and/or setting aside the engagement and/or the selection became infructuous. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the period of engagement has elapsed, the Single Bench disposed of the said writ petition with the following observation: “44. Since tenure of the Opposite Party Nos.7 & 8 have been completed and the Agreement period is over, the prayer to set aside their selection and appointment as THR to deal with Page 2 of 7 preparation and supply of THR vide letter dated 26.05.2023 needs no further order. However, it is made clear that in terms of Clause 4(1) of the Agreement no decision shall be taken for renewal of contract in favour of the Opposite Party Nos.7 & 8, ignoring the case of the Petitioner-S.H.G.” 3. Pursuant to such directions having passed in the above paragraph, the authorities decided to renew the engagement of respondent nos.5 and 6 and since the appellant cannot be ignored from being considered, the authority also allotted the same ward with respondent nos.5 and 6 until fresh selection process is made. The said decision of the Collector, Balasore dated 29th March, 2025 was communicated to the Government for its approval and a conscious decision was taken at the Government level not to approve the engagement of the appellant with the remark “the proposal is regretted”. 4. It is specific stand of the appellant before the Single Bench that once the Single Bench in an earlier writ petition categorically observed that the proposal for renewal of the engagement of respondent nos.5 and 6 shall not be made, it is improper on the part of the authority to renew the said contract. It is further submitted that since the appellant was also engaged as the THR sharing the Page 3 of 7 same ward with respondent no.5, no further grievance was raised in this regard. The Single Bench dismissed the said writ petition having found that the appellant may explore the remedy by moving to a forum as provided. 4.1. It is no longer res integra that mere existence of alternative remedy does not create an absolute bar in maintaining and/or entertaining an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Court has imposed a self-restraint in entertaining such writ petition when the alternative remedy is efficacious and amenable to decide the dispute so raised in the said writ petition. It is the discretion of the writ Court to relegate the parties to exhaust the alternative remedy and if such discretion is exercised, the appellate Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the discretionary order. 4.2. Though we initially intend not to interfere with the discretionary order, but our attention was drawn by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant on several aspects of the facts including the interpretation of the observations made in paragraph-44 of the judgment dated 24th June, 2024 in WP(C) Page 4 of 7 No.20670 of 2023. The said observations have been reproduced hereinbefore, which on meaningful reading conveys a laudable intention that so far as the selection and/or appointment of respondent nos.5 and 6 are concerned, the Single Bench declined to declare such appointment to be infirm and/or illegal or not in consonance with the guidelines or the schemes framed in this regard. The Single Bench categorically observed that since the tenure has expired, there is no occasion to declare such appointment and/or selection to be illegal. 4.3. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations leads to an inescapable inference that the Single Bench refused to declare the selection and/or appointment of respondent nos.5 and 6 as illegal and, therefore, the said question cannot be reopened and/or revisited in a subsequent writ petition. However, the Single Bench subsequently observed that in the event those respondent nos.5 and 6 are considered for renewal of their engagement, the authority shall not ignore the appellant, meaning thereby, the appellant should also be considered by the authorities and the decision for renewal must be taken in its presence. Page 5 of 7 4.4. Interestingly, despite the appellant being not selected in the selection process having an experience of more than a decade, as we find that the appellant was engaged as THR from 2011 till 2022, it was not selected in the said selection process for the year 2023-24. The moment the appellant could not achieve the desired goal or a relief, i.e., quashing and/or setting aside the selection and/or appointment of respondent nos.5 and 6, if the proposal for renewal is considered, we do not find any fetter on the authorities to renew the tenure and/or engagement. Though the appellant was also engaged conjointly with the said respondents, the Government refused to grant the approval, which according to the appellant was unwarranted and not necessary in terms of clause-12 of the said scheme. Since it invites a financial implication, if the authority approached the Government, who framed the scheme, we do not find any infirmity in this regard. 5. The observation of the Single Bench that at the time of considering the prayer for renewal of the engagement of respondent nos.5 and 6 the appellant should not be ignored, cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that an inchoate and/or vested right is created into the appellant for engagement. Once the Page 6 of 7 engagement does not appear to be in consonance with the scheme as the renewal postulates existence of an original, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the decision of the Government. 5.1. Apart from the same, the renewal etymologically relates to a word ‘re’, which means ‘again’ and ‘newal’ means ‘afresh’. It means “again afresh” which postulates the existence of an earlier contract and/or engagement, otherwise it would frustrate the very object of the word ‘re’ introduced before the word ‘newal’. Since the appellant was not engaged earlier, the question of renewal of the engagement does not arise and, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Government. The ultimate decision taken by the Single Bench does not appear to be infirm and/or illegal. 6. The appeal, sans merit and is hereby dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Sep-2025 13:03:44 MRS/Laxmikant (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 7 of 7