The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17223 of 2025 Dr. Sapneswar Behera ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Janmejaya Katikia -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director, Health 3) Collector, Subarnapur 4) Chief Dist. Medical Officer Cdmo, Subarnapur 5) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mohapatra 6) Dr. Saroj Kumar Panigrahi ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.Jena, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 23.07.2025 Order No. 04. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 4 to allow the petitioner to discharge the function of Superintendent, S.D.H., Birmaharajpur in place of Opposite Party No.6 by declaring the action of Opposite Party No.5 in handing over the charge to Opposite Party No.6 as
Legal Reasoning
illegal. The factual background of the present case leading to the filing the present writ application in a nutshell is that the petitioner initially entered into government service on 17.02.2010. Whereas the Page 1 of 5. Opposite Party No.6 entered into government service on 14.10.2016. The pleadings further reveal that the Opposite Party No.6 allegedly made some comments against the present petitioner in a private chat on social media platform. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a letter to the then Superintendent of the S.D.H. of Opposite Party No.5 on 21.02.2025. 4. Since no action was taken the petitioner, the petitioner again reminded the Party No.5 by submitting a reminder on 20.05.2025. In the background of the aforesaid tussle between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No.6, the Opposite party No.5 wrote a letter to the petitioner dated 03.06.2025 under Annexure-3 stating therein that the conduct of the petitioner in giving a threat of legal action against the Opposite Party No.6 is unfortunate and unwarranted. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.5 was transferred on promotion from the S.D.H., Biramaharajpur. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.5 handed over the charge to the Opposite Party No.6 on 10.06.2025 which is evident from the document filed as Annexure-E/4 to the counter affidavit. Being aggrieved by such handing over of charge by the Opposite Party No.5 to the Opposite Party No.6, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that admittedly the Opposite Party No.6 is junior to the present petitioner. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the averments in the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No.4. Further referring to Para-12 of the counter affidavit, it was contended that the petitioner is admittedly senior to Opposite Party No.6 which has been admitted by the Opposite Party No.4 in his counter. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the Page 2 of 5. petitioner has a long the service career, however, the conduct of handing over of the charge by the Opposite Party No.5 to the Opposite Party No.6 who is admittedly junior to the petitioner, has caused humiliation to the petitioner and the same is also contrary to the establish practice and the rules. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4 and contended that the Opposite Party No.5 who was working as Superintendent of S.D.H., Biramaharajpur was transferred on promotion and he was relieved from the S.D.H., Biramaharajpur vide letter dated 09.06.2025. As he was promoted to the rank of State Administrative Grade and posted as CDM & PHO, Dhenkanal vide H & F.W. Department Notification dated 05.06.2025, the Opposite Party No.5, upon his promotion and transfer, has handed over the charge to the Opposite Party No.6. Learned counsel for the State further contended that this is a temporary arrangement till a regular Superintendent is posted at S.D.H., Biramaharajpur. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should not be entertained. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as documents annexe thereto. 8. On an analysis of the factual background of the present case, it is observed that the Opposite Party No.5 was working as Superintendent of S.D.H., Biramaharajpur and on his promotion and transfer as CDM & PHO, Dhenkanal, he was relieved on 09.06.2025. According to the petitioner he is senior to the Opposite Party No.5 and as such the charge is to be handed over to the next senior most man available at the station. Although the petitioner was available at Page 3 of 5. the station, the Opposite Party No.5 ignoring the petitioner, has handed over the charge to the Opposite Party No.5 who is admittedly junior to the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party No.5 in handing over the charge to a person junior to the present petitioner, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present writ application. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact was position, this Court is required to decide the issue as to whether the conduct of the Opposite Party No.5 in handing over the charge to the Opposite party No.6 is valid in law or not? In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the establish practice charge is always handed over to the next senior most man available at the station. However, such establish practice and procedure has not been followed to show undue favour to the Opposite Party No.6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that certain allegations were received against the present petitioner from the staff working in the hospital, therefore, the charge has been handed over to the Opposite Party No.6. 10. On a careful analysis of the aforesaid factual position as well as on a close scrutiny of the materials on record, this Court observes that it is not in dispute that the present petitioner is senior to the Opposite Party No.6. Moreover, the Opposite parties were unable to produce any material before this court with regard to any pending proceeding against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the present petitioner was incompetent to take over the charge of the Superintendent of S.D.H., Biramaharajpur till a regular Superintendent is appointed by the government against the aforesaid vacancy. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Party No.5 has not followed the establish practice and that Page 4 of 5. by not handing over the charge to the available senior most man at the station he has made a clear deviation from such established practice.
Decision
11. Accordingly, the present writ application is being disposed of by directing the Opposite party No.1 to examine the whole issue and take a decision in the matter, keeping in view the establish practice and procedure and further keeping in view any rule or guidelines i.e. applicable to the aforesaid factual scenario. The petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 within week from today along with a copy of today’s order. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider and take a decision as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of ten days from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 26-Jul-2025 13:34:45