Disposed

Pradeep Sahoo v. State

Orissa HC18 Feb 2019WP(C)/10194/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of connected writ petitions regarding alleged illegal appointments in Cuttack Municipal Corporation. The Court held the petition academic as it could not afford to pass orders adverse to the interests of employees who could not be impleaded due to cost, despite previous directions for inquiry.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; writ petitions dismissed as academic with no orders passed against the illegal appointments.

Pradeep Sahoo Vs State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 10194 of 2003

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 10194 of 2003, OJC No. 2823 of 1997, OJC No.4923 of 2001, WP(C) No. 8804 of 2015 & WP(C) No.8809 of 2015

¶3

38. 18.02.2019

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶5

Since all these writ petitions are connected, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. However, we shall treat the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.10194 of 2003 as the leading petition for convenience of discussion. In the said writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the illegal appointments made in Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) and for recovery of public money from the persons responsible for the said scam. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to probe into the scam.

¶6

On 03.04.2014, this Court passed the following order:

¶7

“The issue raised in this petition by way of PIL, highlights the abuse of power in making appointment to various posts in the Municipal Corporation, Cuttack without following the due process of law.

¶8

In the counter affidavit filed by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, it is stated as under:

¶9

“…The alleged appointments were made without prior approval of Govt. There was no communication to Government before appointment of such large number of employees. There was no council resolution available for formation of Selection Committee. Official papers in original relating to those appointments were/are not available in the office. Even genuine papers in this respect were/are not forthcoming. The Ex-Chief Executive of CMC issued show cause notice to 144 persons who were appointed/promoted/and given continuance without any prior approval of Govt. and in violation of amended provisions of O.M. Act vide order No.4564 dt. 11.6.2003, No.5414 dt.

¶10

-2-

¶11

3.7.2003, No.5412 dt. 3.7.2003, and no. 5413 dt. 3.7.2003. Out of those aforesaid 144 persons, one is now dead and two have already been terminated. From among remaining 141 appointees, 11 are teachers, 4 are helpers and 1 is law Moharir who without any prior approval of Government and without any sanctioned posts are continuing 4 of them are cases of promotion bearing those suspicious issue numbers. However, in respect of 9 teachers, though there is no prior approval and sanction of Govt. yet they were given continuance of service pursuant to a council resolution dated 27.3.1999. But in respect of other 132 employees out of said 141, there is neither any valid selection nor any valid appointments….”

¶12

From the above stand of the Municipal Corporation, it is clear that steps are required to be taken against the persons responsible for the illegalities and further remedial steps of removing the persons appointed illegally, may also be required.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the persons who are alleged to have fraudulently entered the service, submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to go into the matter in a PIL in view of the law laid down in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 540 and Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 3515.

¶14

We are unable to accept the submission. The issue raised does not relate to service conditions, but fraudulent exercise of public authority in violation of rule of law. The judgments cited are distinguishable in the fact situation of the present case.

¶15

In view of the above, we direct the Principal Secretary to the Government of Odisha, Urban Department to enquire into all aspects and give a report about the remedial measures to be taken within eight weeks from today.

¶16

-3-

¶17

We request Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation may supply a copy of the brief to Mr. Mishra within week.

¶18

List again on 17.7.2014 along with OJC Nos.2823/1997, 4923/2001, 10077/2001 and W.P.(c) No.6786/2003, 6788/2003, 6785/2003, 6787/2003, 7560/2003, 6319/2003 and 1419 of 2013. …”

¶19

¶20

On 07.04.2015, the following order was passed: “Heard Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the State.

¶21

Perused the affidavit filed by the Commissionercum-Secretary to Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department, Odisha dated 27.01.2015 and the purported Inquiry Report of the Director, Municipal Administration & Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary to Government. On perusal of the same, it appears that no list has been appended thereto of the alleged illegally appointed employees of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation.

¶22

Hence, learned counsel for the State is directed to file a further affidavit indicating the names of such illegally appointed employees as well as the reasons ascribed for declaring such an appointment as illegal within a period of ten days from today.

¶23

We take note of the averments made in para-7 of the affidavit which is quoted hereinbelow:

¶24

“7. That, it is humbly submitted that as the illegal appointments were made during the year 1996-97 and 1998-99 recruitment of the personnel shall be taken-up as per the provisions of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 since the Odisha Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 was not in force.”

¶25

-4-

¶26

In view of the averments made, the State and/or the Municipal Corporation are at liberty to initiate such action as they deem appropriate in the matter but no final orders thereon shall be passed without leave of this Court.

¶27

List this matter on 21.04.2015”

¶28

It is not disputed at the Bar that subsequently, the Municipal Corporation has already taken action against the erring Officers. The scope of the Public Interest Litigation has made clear by this Hon’ble Court in order No.13 dated 03.04.2014 as referred to above.

¶29

Order has already been passed to look into the matter regarding the irregularity committed by the officers. However in view of consequential action likely to be taken, the persons appointed may face termination or reversion or adverse order may be passed against them. But, in spite of affording opportunity, the petitioner is not in a position to afford the cost to implead the persons who are likely to be affected.

¶30

In that view of the matter, it will not be proper to pass any orders in this writ application, which may be adverse to the rights and interest of the persons who are not made parties to this case. As such, this writ petition has become academic.

¶31

The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. All connected Misc. Cases/I.As are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

.…….......……………… ( K.S. Jhaveri ) Chief Justice

¶33

…………………..……… ( K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶34

SKJ

Pradeep Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Das Vs State

Arati Mishra Vs State

State of Orissa Vs Sachikanta Mishra

Mrs.Mrinalini Padhi Vs Dalmia Industries

Gagan Bhutia Vs State and Ors.

Sadhan Ch.Jena Vs State of Orissa