The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32042 of 2023 Birendra Kumar Pani State of Odisha and others -versus- …. Mr.Rajjeet Roy,Advocate Petitioner ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr.Saswat Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 10.10.2023 Order No. 01. 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. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to sow cause as to why the order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the Opp.Party No.2 i.e. Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha under Annxue-9 shall not be quashed/set aside and further as to why the Petitioner shall not be conferred with ‘Temporary Status’ and absorbed against regular Group ‘D’ vacancies, as per Resolutionno.31715/F, dated 04.09.2012 of the Government of Odisha in Finance Department under Annexure-3. And if the Opp.Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court may make the aid rule absolute by quashing/setting aside the order // 2 // dad 20.05.2023 passed by the Opp.Party No.2 i.e. Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha under Annexure-9 and further directing the Opp.Parties to confer the Petitioner with ‘Temporary Status’ and absorb him against regular Group D’ vacancies as per Resolution No.31715/F dated 04.09.2012 of the Government of Odisha in Finance Department under Annexure-3. And further be pleased to issue any other rule/rules or order/orders, appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2023 under Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition which was passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.39612 of 2021, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that vide order dated 17.12.2021 this Court disposed of the Writ Petition of the Petitioner by specifically directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner taking into consideration the Finance Department Resolution No.31715/F dated 04.09.2012 within a period of three months. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order under Annexure-9 and submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 disposed of the representation of the Petitioner with an observation that the Petitioner could not produce any document/evidence regarding his continuous also in subsequent years for consideration of his case to get temporary status as per Finance Department Resolution dated 04.09.2012. Accordingly the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected by Opposite Party No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that // 3 // though materials were available with the CDAO. the same was not produced before the Director for consideration pursuant to the order passed this Court. He further contended that it is a matter of record that the Petitioner has satisfied all the criteria as has been laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.39612 of 2021.Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned rejection order is not sustainable in law and the same be hereby quashed. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the Director has considered the case of the Petitoner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.39612 of 20221 on the basis of the materials produced before the authority. Since no satisfactory evidence were produced before the authority, the case of the Petitioner could not be considered in terms of the Finance Department Resolution No.31715/F. He further contended that the Chief District Agriculture Officer, Bargarh, who is the competent authority in possession of the record did not produce any document for verification by Opposite Party No.2. As such keeping in view the time as has been stipulated by this Court by his earlier order the Opposite Party no.2 has no other option but to reject the representation of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order under Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful examination of the materials on record this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Chief District Agriculture Officer, who is the competent authority and in possession of the relevant records, but failed to produce the same before Opposite Party No.2 for consideration. Therefore, the order passed on 20.05.2023 under // 4 // Annexure-9 is not in terms of the direction given by this Court. In such view of the matter, Annexure-9 is not sustainable in law and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to reconsider the matter after examining the documents to be produced and dispose of within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Chief District Agriculture Officer, Bargarh Opposite Party no.5 is further directed to produce the relevant records pertaining to the Petitioner before Opposite Party No.2 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks . 8. It is needless to mention here that the Opposite Party no.2 shall do well to consider the case of the Petioner in terms of the Finance Department Resolution dated 04.09.2012 and pass a reasoned order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner. While considering the representation of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the documents under Annexure-4 series in the event the same is produced before the Opposite Party No.2. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: Ex-A.R.-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Oct-2023 10:42:10 ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge