The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19639 of 2020 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ---- Sri Basanta Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha, represented through its Principal Secretary in the School & Mass Education Department & Others …. Opposite Parties Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioner - M/s. Sameer Kumar Das, P.K. Behera & N. Jena (Advocates)
Legal Reasoning
light of the decision of this Court in Chandramani Jena V. State of Orissa, 2007 (II) OLR 577. Thereafter, the Collector, Cuttack passed order dated 23.02.2013 to offer appointment to the Page 2 of 6 petitioner subject to approval of the State Government. In the meanwhile, against order dated 28.08.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.28727 of 2011, Writ Appeal No.267 of 2014 was filed by the State and the Division Bench of this Court negatived the same vide order dated 28.03.2018. Even thereafter, the appointment alluded the petitioner eventually resulting into he filing another case in W.P.(C) No.12624 of 2017, which came to be allowed by yet another Co-ordinate Bench on 02.08.2018 and ultimately, the petitioner secured appointment order on 03.08.2018. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner should be treated retrospective effect from the date on which the others in the selected list were given with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned AGA, having entered appearance for the opposite parties, has filed the counter affidavit resisting the petition inter alia contending that when all vacancies were existed in terms of the select list, no post was available in which the petitioner could be accommodated and therefore, to do justice, he has been accorded the appointment order although bit belatedly. When the appointment order is issued, only then the contract of service begins and in course of time, it attains the status vide Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel; AIR 1985 SC 1416. That being the Page 3 of 6 position, the benefit cannot be claimed for pre-status period. So
Arguments
For Opp. Parties - Mr.S.K. Jee, Additional Government Advocate CORAM MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 08.09.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J. The Petitioner, who had fought a slew of petitions before this Court, has structured his prayer as under:- “Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the office order no. 2025 dtd: 22.07.2020 of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 under Annexure-9 and direct the Opposite Parties to extend all the benefits Page 1 of 6 of a Sikshya Sahayak, Junior Teacher and regular Teacher to the petitioner from the dates his batch mates or his juniors selected from the same selection pursuant to advertisement under Annexure-1 have availed the same i.e. Sikshya Sahayak from 16.12.2006, Junior Teacher from 16.12.2009 and regular Teacher from 16.12.2012 and grant all consequential service and financial benefits as that has been paid to those persons including his seniority in the cadre of Level-V of the services within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once name of a candidate rightly appears in the select list, selection process having been duly accomplished, he will have some right to consideration for appointment, subject to all just exceptions. The advertisement was dated 14.10.2006. Petitioner, along with others, was in the fray of selection and final select list came to be appeared on 16.12.2006. The petitioner figured at Sl. No.4 under SEBC category. However, he was not given appointment. The petitioner had filed W.P(C) No.13075 of 2007 wherein a Co- ordinate Bench, vide order dated 31.10.2007, directed consideration of his case. Thereafter, he filed CONTC No.409 of 2008 and by that time, his candidature was rejected by Collector, Cuttack vide order dated 20.05.2008. That led to filing of W.P.(C) No.28727 of 2011 wherein another Co-ordinate Bench, on 28.08.2012, directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the
Decision
contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:- 4.1. There is no dispute that the recruitment process began with the advertisement dated 14.10.2006, in which the petitioner and others had participated. The final select list was drawn on 16.12.2006 wherein the petitioner’s name figured at Sl. No.4 under SEBC category. Appointment orders were issued to all others and step-motherly that was not issued to the petitioner. 4.2. The petitioner had to file too many legal battles, the particulars of which have been furnished above and at the long last, he secured the appointment order only in August, 2018 absolutely, no fault is attributable to him but to the officials. For fault of the officials, a citizen cannot be punished in a welfare State, which is constitutionally organized. Therefore, the contention of the learned AGA cannot be fully accepted. 4.3. All the above having been said, certain things have happened and at this length of time, it is difficult to up-set the same, inasmuch as if up-set, more mischief they would breed than doing justice to others. To that extent, learned AGA is right in telling the Court that no benefit of seniority nor of monetary Page 4 of 6 values can be accorded to the petitioner, appointment itself being of 03.08.2018. That being said, the minimum benefit of counting his service for all other practical purposes cannot be denied. 4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in pressing into service the decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. Pritilata Nanda; (2010) 11 SCC 674 wherein Paragraphs-21 & 22 read as under:- “21. We also agree with the High Court that once the candidature of the respondent was accepted by the concerned authorities and she was allowed to participate in the process of selection i.e., written test and viva voce, it was not open to them to turn around and question her entitlement to be considered for appointment as per her placement in the merit list on the specious ground that her name had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. In our considered view, by denying appointment to the respondent despite her selection and placement in the merit list, the appellants violated her right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. 22. However, there is a small aberration in the operative part of the impugned order. While the High Court was fully justified in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent from the date persons lower in merit were appointed, but it is not possible to confirm the direction given for payment of full salary with retrospective effect. In our view, the High Court should have directed the appellants to notionally fix the pay of the respondent with effect from the date person placed at Sl. No.12 at the merit list was appointed and give her all monetary benefits with effect from that date.” In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 22.07.2020 issued by the Collector-Cum-C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Page 5 of 6 Cuttack-opposite party no.3 at Annexure-9; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the said opposite party to grant the benefit of notional service to the petitioner sans any monetary or seniority benefits, so that he shall be deemed to have been regularized in service with effect from the date, i.e., 16.12.2012, when his immediate junior figuring in the select list got such regularization. It is again made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the seniority against anyone nor any monetary benefits on the basis of this order. A cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) is levied, which shall be paid to the petitioner within thirty (30) days and if delay is brooked, an amount of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred) per day shall be added to that and the said amount shall be recovered from the erring officials of the State in accordance with law. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 8th Day of September, 2025/Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2025 18:23:13 Page 6 of 6