A single judge disposed of a writ petition by directing the Higher Education department to consider the petitioner's representation regarding ad hoc service computation in terms of a specific precedent within three months.
Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on ad hoc service computation within three months.
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.
W.P.(C) No.14510 of 2020
Heard Mr.Sisir Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate.
The petitioner in the present writ petition has sought for a direction to the opposite parties to compute the period of ad hoc service of the petitioner towards his career advancement as Senior Lecturer and Reader.
In course of hearing, Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that highlighting his grievance, the petitioner has made a comprehensive representation to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education department, Government of Odisha, opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-7 series, which are still pending for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if a direction would be issued to opposite party No.1 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-7 series in terms of the ratio decided in the case of Nilakantha Mishra and Karunakar Sahoo, then the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate however does not have any serious objection to that course of action.
Considering the limited nature of grievance of the petitioner and without delving into the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party
R
2
No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-7 series in terms of the ratio decided in the case of Nilakantha Mishra and Karunakar Sahoo as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified/authenticated copy of this order.
The opposite party No.1 shall act on production of certified/authenticated copy of this order, copy of the writ petition and the decision rendered in the case of Nilakantha Mishra and Karunakar Sahoo.
…………..…..…..
P. Patnaik, J.
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for computation of ad hoc service period for career advancement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nilakantha Mishra and Karunakar SahooApplied¶5
Nilakantha Mishra and Karunakar Sahoo
Petitioner
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education department, Government of Odisha
P. Patnaik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
