The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26715 of 2023 Dr. Pitha Charan Murmu …. Petitioner Mr. Bhojaraj Seth, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 17.07.2025 Order No. 04. 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State. Instant writ petition 2. the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 1st June, 2023 as at filed by is Annexure-3 of opposite party No.3 on the grounds stated therein with a direction to the latter to renew his engagement in the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Nuapada. 3. Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged in and issued with appointment order dated 21st October, 2017 as per Annexure-1 and thereafter, was terminated vide Annexure-2. It is submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 34743 of 2020 and it was
Decision
disposed of followed by W.A. No.775 of 2020 with a direction therein to consider the request received from him for renewal of Page 1 of 5 engagement under the Scheme within a stipulated period. In spite of such a direction, it is further submitted by Mr. Seth, learned counsel that the rejection order dated 1st June, 2023 i.e. Annexure-3 was passed. The contention is that the petitioner has been an unblemished track record but unfortunately, such reengagement in the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Nuapada was denied. It is contended that the petitioner may be re-engaged under the Scheme, which is still in force. The submission is that since there has been no reason assigned on discontinuation of the service of the petitioner save and except the contract period could not be extended having no corpus fund, the impugned decision by order dated 1st June, 2023 as per Annexure-3 is required to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued for reinstatement. 4. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the State through opposite party Nos.3 and 4, Mr. Swain, learned AGA would submit that pursuant to the direction of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.775 of 2020, the case of the petitioner was duly considered but reinstatement was refused and reasons have been assigned therefor. Further referring to the rejection order i.e. Annexure-3, Mr. Swain, learned AGA submits that there has been serious allegation of negligence against the petitioner, details of which are mentioned therein and hence, his reinstatement was not considered and therefore, no wrong or illegality was committed by the Authority concerned denying reinstatement. Page 2 of 5 5. Perused the order of appointment dated 21st October, 2017 as at Annexure-1.In fact, the petitioner was engaged as a Consultant Physician (O&G) on contractual basis for a period of eleven months and finally issued with the order of termination dated 15th July, 2020. On a reading of the termination order at Annexure-2, the Court finds that the authority concerned, namely, C.D.M. & PHO, Nuapada was not in favour of extension of contract period beyond 17th July, 2020. Later thereto, the petitioner as earlier stated approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 34743 of 2020 and thereafter in W.A. No.775 of 2020 and therein by order dated 7th January, 2021, a direction was issued to consider his case for continuation/renewal of engagement in accordance with the Scheme. However, after receiving a direction as above, opposite party No.3 disposed of and declined such reinstatement of the petitioner by rejection order dated 1st June, 2023 i.e. Annexure-3. 6. In course of hearing, Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such ground was assigned in the order of termination as revealed from Annexure-2, however, thereafter upon receiving the direction in W.A No.775 of 2020, reinstatement was refused with adverse remarks alleging that the performance to be not satisfactory while he was working as Specialist (O&G) in CHC, Sinapali and CHC, Khariar during the contractual period. Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that though there is a demand of public for such reinstatement of the petitioner once again under the Page 3 of 5 Scheme but with such a conclusion by opposite party No.3, reengagement has been declined. In response to the above, Mr. Swain, learned AGA submits that the allegations are very serious and considering the materials available with the establishment, the reinstatement of the petitioner was refused and he once again refers to the rejection order i.e. Annexure-3. 7. On a bare reading of the order of rejection dated 1st June, 2023, it is made to understand that the performance of the petitioner during such contractual engagement was not satisfactory at both the stations stating therein that he exhibited rude behavior towards colleagues and even patients. The other allegations are that the petitioner was seriously negligent in offering treatment to expectant mothers and neonates and such could be established with an inquiry held by the superior officers. With such other adverse remarks, opposite party No.3 considered it not proper to reinstate the petitioner under the Scheme and hence, it was followed by the rejection order i.e. Annexure-3. 8. Considering the claim that the petitioner is having good reputation and recommendation is made from the local public for such reengagement, which is unlikely to render any assistance since self-proclaimed and in view of the adverse materials against him so revealed from Annexure-3 alleging serious negligence while in engaged at CHC, Sinapali and CHC, Khariar, any such a submission though made by Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the rejoinder Page 4 of 5 affidavit and Annexure-A/4 thereto, the Court is of the humble view that opposite party No.3 cannot be said to have erred in denying such reinstatement and rightly, therefore, on reaching at a conclusion, while considering the request pursuant to the Court’s order in W.A. No.775 of 2020 declined the same and hence, the impugned decision by order dated 1st June, 2023 since does not suffer from any legal infirmity is not liable to be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 20:02:14 Page 5 of 5