Petitioner challenged non-disclosure of a vacant OBST & GYN seat in counseling. The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the authority to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an order within three weeks without expressing opinion on merits.
Directed authority to consider petitioner representation and pass order within three weeks.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.32265 of 2022
Dr. A. Tanuja
Petitioner
Mr. C.K. Panda, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha & Others
Opposite Parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
19.12.2022
Order
No.
“It is, in the circumstances, humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, to issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed, upon showing insufficient cause/no cause made the said Rule absolute, Issue writ/writs in the nature of
1. Mandamus directing Opposite Parties to declare the action of the opp. parties in not disclosing vacant seat of OBST & GYN under State quota available in Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar during the second round of counseling and their further decision to add this vacant seat in mop up round as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional by further directing the State opposite parties to conduct a review counseling process of second round by disclosing all actual vacancies as well as virtual vacancies permitting the petitioner to exercise her willingness for
Page 1 of 2
upgradation.
2. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, diction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper or the ends of justice.
4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting her grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to the authority vide Annexure-8 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.
5 . As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing the authority to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
Alok/Sangita
(B. P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the authority must consider the petitioner representation regarding non-disclosure of a vacant seat in MBBS counseling.
Dr. A. Tanuja
State of Odisha
B.R. Sarangi
Biraja Prasantha Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
