The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.33927 of 2023 Datatraya Biswal ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Budhadev Routray, Sr. Adv. State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Sasmita Naik, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. 13. I.A. No.6516 of 2024
Decision
ORDER 04.02.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Shri Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the I.A. as well as the writ petition and the documents annexed to both the petitions. 3. The present I.A. has been filed by the Petitioner seeking modification of final order dated 01.05.2024 passed in the present writ application. 4. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the case of the Petitioner was disposed of in the same manner as has been done in case of other similarly situated persons including one Sonam Satapathy. He further contended that in the Page 1 of 5. present writ application, the order dated 30.09.2023 under Annexure- 7 was under challenge. On perusal of the said order it appears that the name of one Sonam Satapathy appears against Sl. No.1 and the name of the present Petitioner appears against Sl. No.2. He further contended that pursuant to the order passed in the case of Sonam Satapathy i.e. in W.P.(C) No.34363 of 2023 disposed of vide order dated 12.03.2024, the said Sonam Satapathy has been given appointment. So far the present Petitioner is concerned, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while disposing of the present writ application certain additional observations were made to the effect that the order shall remain valid subject to the condition that the new master list has not come into existence pursuant to the recruitment examination for the post of Junior Assistant, 2023 published on 24.02.2023. In view of the aforesaid observation, the case of the Petitioner was not considered. However, the cases of similarly situated any other persons have been considered and they have been given appointment against the existing vacancies. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the aforesaid observation made by this Court, in the case of the present Petitioner, in its order dated 01.05.2024 has caused discrimination against the petitioner. As a result of which, he could not get the benefit. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that there are some vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant due to non-joining of some of the candidates. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the case of Sonam Satapathy, as has been referred to hereinabove, is similar to the case of the present Petitioner and they both stand in a similar footing. Therefore, in the event the additional Page 2 of 5. observations made in the case of the Petitioner is not modified, the same would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and the Petitioner would be grossly discriminated against, which would eventually amount to failure of justice. 6. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand objected to the modification of order dated 01.05.2024. She further submitted that the observation that have been referred to by the learned Senior Counsel, was made after hearing the learned counsels and while passing the final order in the present writ application on 01.05.2024. Although, the learned counsel for the State submitted that she did not dispute the fact that the Sonam Satapathy has been given appointment in the meantime, however, the case of the Petitioner cannot be considered in view of the additional observation made in order dated 01.05.2024. She further contended that in the meantime, a new master list has been prepared and appointments have already been made. She further contended that she has no instruction with regard to the vacancy position. On such grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the I.A. moved by the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic consideration. Accordingly, it was prayed that the same should be dismissed. 7. In reply to the aforesaid contention made by the learned counsel for the State, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Odisha Sub-ordinate Staff Selection Commission published the result on 16.02.2024 which was made subject to the final outcome of the present writ application. On such ground, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the publication of the result will not stand in the way of the Petitioner. Page 3 of 5. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court observes that while disposing of the all writ applications, a similar type of order was passed in all the writ applications. However, while disposing of the writ application of the present Petitioner the additional observation was made which was not there in the orders in other similar writ applications. As a result of which, the petitioner could not get appointment whereas the other similarly situated persons, who had approached this Court, have already been appointed in the meantime. As such, unless the order dated 01.05.2024 is suitably modified, the Petitioner would be highly discriminated against and the order dated 01.05.2024 would become infructuous. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court deems it proper to modify the order dated 01.05.2024 to the extent that the additional observation which have been quoted hereinbelow is hereby deleted:- “It is further directed that this order shall remain valid subject to condition that the new master list has not come into existence pursuant to the recruitment examination for the post of Junior Assistant, 2023 published on 24.02.2023.” 10. Learned Senior Counsel at this juncture further contended that in para-9 of order dated 01.05.2024 the writ number has been wrongly mentioned. 11. Considering such submission, the writ petition number which has been mentioned in 2nd and 3rd line of para-9 be substituted as “W.P.(C) No.21175 of 2023” in place of “W.P.(C) No.2175 of Page 4 of 5. 2023”. 12. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the I.A. stands disposed of. 13. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Feb-2025 11:24:31