The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.38426, 38428, 38429 & 38530 of 2021 Subhashree Parida …. Petitioner Mr. L.P. Dwivedy, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 09. 1. This matter
Decision
ORDER 10.09.2025 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Since the present batch of Writ Petitions involves similar issue, all these matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. All these Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) quash the Proceeding of the Empowered Committee held on 02.03.2019, annexed to the. Compliance affidavit under Annexure-13 and thereby direct the Opp. Parties to give appointment to the Petitioner as Constable in Khordha district w.e.f the date the Opp. Party No.4 has been given appointment with all consequential service and monetary benefits, // 2 // within a stipulated period, as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court; (ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;” 5. It is contended that petitioners were there before the Tribunal in O.A. No.1176(C) of 2013 and batch and the Tribunal vide order dated 26.11.2015 under Annexure-8 issued the following direction so contained in Para-10:- “10. In the result, the O.A. is allowed and annexure-7 the select list is quashed and consequently the respondent- authorities are directed to prepared a fresh merit list, following the principle as reservation as laid down in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh & Another Vrs- State of Utter Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 1 SCC (L & S) 772 and while preparing the select list, the names of reserved category candidate who have availed reservation other than in age and fees, should not be included in the list of candidate under U.R. category. Since there has been inordinate delay, the entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and consequential action for issuance of appointment order be taken.” 5.1. It is contended that when the order passed by the Tribunal was not complied, Contempt Petitions were filed seeking compliance of the order in CONTC(CPC) No.129 of 2016 as well as 126 and 127 of 2016. In the said Contempt Petition, when a compliance affidavit was filed enclosing the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dated 02.03.2019, the said compliance was not accepted by the Tribunal and it was rejected vide order dated 09.07.2019 under Annexure-10. The Opp. Party/Contemnor in the Contempt Petition was directed to file a fresh compliance. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 5.2. However, in the meantime since the Tribunal got abolished and the matter was transferred to this Court, this Court while disposing the Contempt Petition vide order dated 05.07.2021 under Annexure-11 and 12 directed the Opp. Parties herein to pass a fresh order strictly in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. This Court further indicated that earlier compliance submitted by the Opp. Party No.3 has been rejected by the Tribunal. 5.3. On the face of such order passed by this Court under Annexure-11 and 12, O.P. No.3 while complying the order once again passed an order on dated 07.10.2021 showing the compliance under Annexure- 13. Such an order has been passed in terms of the decision taken by the Committee on 02.03.2019. 5.4. It is contended that compliance dated 07.10.2021 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present batch of Writ Petitions was also the compliance, which was not accepted by the Tribunal with due rejection vide order dated 09.07.2019 under Annexure-10. Therefore, similar compliance could not have been issued while complying the order passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.2021 under Annexure- 13. 5.5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned compliance dated 07.10.2021 communicated vide Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Annexure-12 and 13 in all these Writ Petitions are not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 11.12.2021, but no counter affidavit has been filed. However, basing on the materials available on record, it is contended that the compliance earlier rejected by the Tribunal, is not the compliance, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present batch of Writ Petitions. It is contended that since a different compliance order has been passed on 07.10.2021, it cannot be held that the compliance earlier rejected by the Tribunal is the compliance made by the O.P. No.3 on 07.10.2021 under Annexure-12 and 13. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Tribunal while disposing O.A. No.1176(C) of 2013 and batch vide order dated 26.11.2015 under Annexure-8, directed O.P. No.3 to complete the selection process within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the order with certain observations and direction. 7.1. When the said order was not complied CONTC(CPC) No.129 of 2016 and CONTC(CPC) Nos.126 and 127 of 2016 were filed by the present petitioners. In the said Contempt Petition, when compliance affidavit was filed showing compliance of the direction Page 4 of 6 // 5 // basing on the decision taken by the Committee in its proceeding dated 02.03.2019, the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.07.2019 under Annexure-10 and with a further direction to file a fresh compliance. 7.2. However, prior to filing of such fresh compliance and the matter on being transferred to this Court, this Court vide order under Annexure-11 and 12, while disposing the 3 (three) Contempt Petitions, directed O.P. No.3 to pass a fresh compliance in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-8. 7.3. However, it is found that similar compliance order has been passed vide order dated 07.10.2021 basing on the decision taken in the proceeding dtd. 02.03.2019 which was earlier rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 09.07.2019. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the compliance order dated 07.10.2021 available under Annexure-12 and 13 in the present batch of the Writ Petitions. 7.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the compliance order dated 07.10.2021 enclosed under Annexure-12 and 13 in all these Writ Petitions, directs O.P. No.3 to pass a fresh compliance strictly in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-8 within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of Page 5 of 6 // 6 // receipt of this order with due communication to each of the petitioners. 8. All these Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Photocopy of this order be placed in other connected matters. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2025 17:58:52 Page 6 of 6