The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31813 of 2023 Rajendra Kumar Panda …. Mr. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 10.10.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate 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 prayer : “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner fervently prays to the Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to admit the petition, call for the relevant records and after hearing the Counsels for parties issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to consider his cause in one of the vacant posts still exist and meant for Extra Temporary Warder as has been done in case of other similarly situated persons. And issue such other writ, order or direction as will do complete justice to the petitioner.” It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner 4. that the Petitioner who was initially appointed as Extra Temporary // 2 // Warder on 06.12.1999. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an O.A. before the Tribunal bearing O.A. No.1809(c) of 2012 for extension of such Temporary Warder service. On 27.09.2010 the above noted O.A. was disposed of with a direction to consider the Petitioner’s case in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3898 of 2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19192 of 2012 with a prayer to give him appointment in the post of Warder in terms of order passed in W.P.(C) No.3898 of 2003. On 25.03.2022 this Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment after disposal of the aforesaid writ application, the Petitioner made a representation on 16.04.2022. While the representation of the Petitioner was pending for consideration, the Opposite Parties published an advertisement to fill up the post of Warder on 15.10.2022. The last date of such for submission of application was 13.11.2022. Under the aforesaid advertisement under Annexure-13 to the writ application total 94 posts were advertised. 5. Since the representation of the Petitioner was not considered the Petitioner sought for information under the Right to Information Act with regard to the vacancy position. Pursuant to such application the Petitioner has been informed vide letter dated 15.09.2023 that out of 94 posts of Warder which were advertised 86 numbers of candidates were selected by the Directorate of Prisons and DCS, Bhubaneswar. Further, out of such 86 only 63 were selected, who were selected turned up to report for joining. Therefore, the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Cuttack has given information to the Petitioner under Right to Information Act that 23 numbers of Warder posts are lying vacant as on 21.08.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that despite availability of 23 vacant posts of Warder as is evident from the // 3 // information received under the Right to Information Act under Annexure-14 to the writ application, the Opposite parties have not considered the case of the Petitioner for appointment as a Warder as directed by this Court earlier. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that on perusal of the writ application it appears that the Petitioner has been provided information under the Right to Information Act indicating therein certain posts of Warder are lying vacant, however, he has no such instruction. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that keeping in view the background of the present case, the Petitioner should have first approached the Director General of Prisons, Opposite Party No.2 for redressal of his grievance. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19192 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2022 with an observation that if any vacancy arises in future the case of the petitioner shall be considered for appointment to the post in question even by granting age relaxation. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1809(c) of 2009 was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that after disposal of the above noted writ application the Petitioner filed a contempt application bearing CONTC No.2247 of 2023 which was also disposed of on 13.07.2023 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that no further direction is required to be given to the writ application as there is already a direction by a Division Bench of this Court to consider the case of the Petitioner as against any future vacancy. In such view of the matter, learned // 4 // Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ application is not maintainable and hence the same should be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record and keeping in view the limited nature of the prayer involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner pursuant to order dated 25.03.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.19192 of 2012. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with a certified copy of this order. In such event, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of order dated 25.03.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.19192 of 2012 keeping in view the vacancy position under Annexure-14 to the writ application. A final decision be taken in the matter within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Oct-2023 18:15:05