The Bench dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable because the impugned order dated 9.02.1999, attached as Annexure-10, pertained to Chakradhar Behera and not the petitioner, Ramesh Chandra Nayak. Consequently, the challenge to the order was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
O.J.C. No.4275 of 2000
2. 5.11.2020
This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for the opposite party no.1 and learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
This Writ Petition involves the following prayer:
“Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 9.02.1999 in Annexure-10; And further be pleased to direct the O.Ps to regularize the services of the petitioner retrospectively with all consequential service and financial benefits; And further be pleased to direct the O.Ps to regularize the services of the petitioner in any of the available posts under the administrative control of the O.Ps; And further be pleased to pass any other order/ orders as deemed fit and proper;”
Ayas
Taking this Court to the order vide Annexure-10 at page 24 of the brief learned counsel for petitioner submitted that order involved therein involved the present petitioner. On going through the order vide Annexure-10 more particularly at paragraph no.5 therein this Court finds, the order involves one Chakradhar Behera who is not the present petitioner and there is reference of O.J.C No.2966/98 in the order vide Annexure-10 admittedly belongs to Chakradhar Behera and petitioner involved in some other Writ Petition. Since the impugned order vide Annexure-10 does not belong to the petitioner- Ramesh Chandra Nayak, this Writ Petition is not maintainable involving challenge to Annexure-10 herein, which is hereby dismissed.
Petitioner has the responsibility to serve copy of this order along with copy of the Writ Petition so also the copy of the judgments cited supra on the opposite party nos.3 & 4 within a period of ten days, as undertaken.
.……………………..…
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the order dated 9.02.1999 is maintainable as the order pertains to an individual, Chakradhar Behera, not the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is correctly impleaded to challenge the order vide Annexure-10.
Whether the petition regarding regularization of services is sustainable when the impugned order does not involve the petitioner.
Ramesh Chandra Nayak
Op. No.1
Op. No.2
Op. No.3
Op. No.4
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
