The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30821 of 2023 Namita Rath …. Petitioner Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha and Others …. -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 16.10.2023 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
one Khetra Mohan Kunda approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.13094 of 2005. This Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dated 27.10.2005 passed an interim order by observing that the present petitioner shall not be allowed to join in place of Sri Kunda, if she has not already joined. This Court further observed that it will be open for the Opposite Parties to apply for modification/variation of the order on or after filing of the counter affidavits. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that by that time the interim order was passed by this Court on 27.10.2005, the petitioner since had already joined on 19.10.2005, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue. But the Opposite Parties did not allow the petitioner to continue in her work in terms of the order of appointment issued in her favour under Annexure-2. However, after disposal of the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.13094 of 2005 by this Court on 25.07.2019, petitioner made a representation before the Opp. Party No.1 on 11.09.2019 under Annexure-18 with a request to provide her appointment as a Tax Assistant. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that when no such decision was taken on the request made by the petitioner under Annexure-18 and subsequent representation filed vide Annexure-20 series, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.15226 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 13.07.2022 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction on Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner, so made in her representation under Annexure-18. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s claim, Opposite Party No.1 rejected the prayer vide the impugned order dated 03.06.2023. 4.4. It is contended that since the petitioner was duly selected and appointed as FTRP in the trade Tax Assistant in terms of order dated 01.10.2005 and subsequent order issued in her favour on 15.10.2005 under Annexure-2, the prayer of the petitioner should not have been rejected instead of allowing her to continue as against the post of Tax Assistant with service continuity. 5. Mr. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that even though the petitioner was selected and appointed as a FTRP in the trade Tax Assistant in terms of the order issued under Annexures-1 and 2, but this Court in W.P.(C) No.13094 of 2005, while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order by holding that the present petitioner shall not be allowed to join in place of the petitioner of that Writ Petition, if the present petitioner has not already joined. It is contended that the present petitioner was Opp. Party No.4 in the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // aforesaid Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.13094 of 2005. Though it is the stand of the petitioner that prior to passing of the impugned order passed on 27.10.2005, the petitioner had already joined on 19.10.2005, but the said fact was never brought to the notice of this Court with filing of appropriate application in that regard. 5.1. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate further contended that since the petitioner did not take any step for modification/variation of the order in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in order dated 27.10.2005 and the matter was kept pending till it was ultimately disposed of on 25.07.2019, petitioner cannot get the benefit of the order, which was passed on 15.10.2005 i.e. more than 18 years ago. It is accordingly contended that prayer of the petitioner to allow her to continue as a FTRP in the trade Tax Assistant has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 6. To the aforesaid submission of Mr. Samal, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13094 of 2005 duly appeared and filed her counter affidavit, but the matter was never taken up by this Court even though appropriate application was filed. This Court in order to consider the submission of Mr. Mohanty, called for the records of W.P.(C) No.13094 of 2005 vide order dated 05.10.2023. From the said record it is found that after her appearance with due filing of the counter on 02.01.2006, petitioner never took any step by filing appropriate Page 4 of 5 // 5 // application seeking modification/variation of the order dated 27.10.2005, even though such a liberty was given by this Court while passing such interim order. This Court further found that the Writ Petition was never listed after
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State-Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 03.06.2023, so passed by the Opposite Party No.1. Vide the said order of the prayer of the petitioner to allow her to continue in the post of Tax Assistant to which she was selected and appointed with her joining on 19.10.2005 was rejected. 4. It is contended that petitioner vide order under Annexure-1 was found suitable and she was provisionally selected for her engagement as a FTRP. Petitioner in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1 was appointed as FTRP in Tax Assistant trade vide order dated 15.10.2005 // 2 // under Annexure-2. It is contended that after due execution of the agreement on the very same date vide Annexure-3, Petitioner submitted her joining on 19.10.2005 as reflected in Annexure-4. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that challenging the selection and appointment of the petitioner
Decision
09.12.9005 till it was ultimately disposed of on 25.09.2019. 7. The petitioner only after disposal of the Writ Petition by this Court on 25.07.2019 moved Opp. Party No.1 to allow her to continue as against the post in which she was appointed vide order under Annexure-2. Since it is found that the petitioner never took any step for modification/variation of the order dated 27.10.2005 after filing her counter on 02.01.2006 and remained silent till it was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 25.07.2019, this Court on the ground of such conduct of the petitioner is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Opposite Party No.1 on 03.06.2023 under Annexure-23. Accordingly, this Court dismiss the Writ Petition. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication of Order Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Oct-2023 13:13:54 Page 5 of 5