The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.17331 of 2024 Amarbar Mallick ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Kunal Kumar Swain State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 21.04.2025 02. 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 humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; (A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the impugned order dated the Chief Development 21.01.2023 passed by Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Koraput under Annexure-11 and necessary direction may be made to the opposite parties to reckon the seniority of the petitioner from 14.12.2006 instead of 16.02.2008 and he may be given promotion to the Page 1 of 6. post of Village Level Worker, which is now re- designated as Panchayat Executive Officer from 2013 i.e. from the date when other similarly situated persons have got promotion to such post with all consequential service and financial benefits, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; (B) And any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that after being selected the Petitioner was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sevak (GRS) vide office order dated 15.02.2008 issued by the Project Director, DRDA, Koraput under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He further contended that pursuant to the advertisement a call letter was issued to the Petitioner on 09.11.2016 and the Petitioner appeared in the recruitment test for the post of GRS. Finally, a select list was prepared, which includes the name of the Petitioner at Serial No.26, under Annexure-2 to the writ Petition. He further contended that although the Petitioner was duly selected, however he was not given appointment to the post of GRS. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner initially filed a representation before the DRDA, Koraput. However, the said representation was rejected by the Additional Project Director, DRDA, Koraput vide letter dated 17.10.2017 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by such order under Annexure-3, the Petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.2694(C) of 2007. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.2007, under Page 2 of 6. Annexure-4 to the writ petition, disposed of the O.A. filed by the Petitioner directing the Collector, Koraput to treat the O.A. as representation of the Petitioner and to reconsider the same and take a decision as to whether the Petitioner can be appointed as Secretary to Raniguda G.P. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after disposal of the said O.A., the Petitioner once again approached the Collector, Koraput. Finally, the Petitioner was issued with an appointment letter on 15.02.2008, issued by the Project Director, DRDA, Koraput under Annexure-5 to the writ petition to join as GRS. He further submitted that the Petitioner is still continuing in the post of GRS since the date of his appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since the seniority of the Petitioner has been reckoned from the date of his appointment, the Petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3212(C)/2018. After abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, the said O.A. was transferred to this Court and reregistered as WPC(OAC) No.3212 of 2018. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2022 disposed of the said writ petition and directed the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the petition of the Petitioner which was pending before the Opposite Party No.2 within a period of two months from the date of communication of a copy of order dated 26.09.2022. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after disposal of the above noted writ petition, the Opposite Parties, without giving any notice to the Petitioner, have once again rejected the prayer of the Petitioner Page 3 of 6. vide order dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Further, referring to the order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the C.D.O.-cum-Zilla Parishad, Koraput, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the said order has passed pursuant to the order of the learned coordinate Bench in the previous writ petition. However, no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner. It is further contended that the seniority of the Petitioner should have been reckoned from the date the vacancy was advertised. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality by reckoning the seniority of the Petitioner from the date his initial appointment, i.e. in the year 2008. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, produced the record before this Court as was directed vide order dated 19.09.2024. Further, referring to the record, learned counsel for the State, contended that the Petitioner was noticed on three separate occasions, i.e. 30.11.2022, 07.01.2023 and 11.01.2023 with a request to attend the hearing. However, the Petitioner did not participate in the hearing even though an opportunity was provided to him on three separate occasions. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the allegation with regard to non-observance of principle of natural justice does not arise in the first place. He further contended that the Opposite Parties considered the case of the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by this Court in WPC(OAC) No.3212 of 2018 and since the Petitioner’s claim was found to be Page 4 of 6. unsustainable in law, his petition was rejected. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, further on a close scrutiny of record produced before this Court, it is observed that the sole ground on which the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the C.D.O.-cum-Zilla Parishad, Koraput, under Annexure-11 to the writ petition, is that before passing the final order, the Opposite Party No.2 has not given an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. On perusal of the record, it appears that although notices were issued on several dates, however the Petitioner has failed to appear before the authority before the final decision was taken vide order dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure- 11. On further scrutiny of the record, it appears that there is no acknowledgment of the fact that the Petitioner has received a notice issued by the Opposite Parties, as alleged by the learned counsel for the State. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, emphatically argued that except the notice dated 30.11.2022, the Petitioner has not received any other notice from the Opposite Parties. He further contended that pursuant to the notice dated 30.11.2022 although the Petitioner appeared, however the matter was adjourned and no hearing took place on that date. Page 5 of 6. 9. Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute involved in the present writ petition and without entering into the merits of the matter at this stage, this Court deems it proper to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner in the larger interests of justice and keeping in view the spirit of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Accordingly, the order dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-11 to the writ petition is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Opposite Party No.2 on 12th May, 2025 along with his records and all other documents in support of his contention. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider and dispose of the petition of the Petitioner as has been directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner on 12th May, 2025. In the event the matter is adjourned for any reasons, then subsequent notice be given to the Petitioner by obtaining due acknowledgement. Any final decision taken on the petition of the Petitioner shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such decision. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Debasis Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 22-Apr-2025 18:41:08 ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6.