Disposed

Soumya Ranjan Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 May 2023WP(C)/11536/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his exclusion from a Constable recruitment list despite claiming higher marks than selected candidates. The Single Judge dismissed the petition directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the State Selection Board Odisha Police within 10 days to seek reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation before the State Selection Board Odisha Police within 10 days for reconsideration.

Soumya Ranjan Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11536 of 2023

¶3

Soumya Ranjan Sahu

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Jagannath Bhuyan, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & another

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. S. Das, AGA

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

09.05.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶17

Heard Mr. J. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶19

“Under the facts and circumstances stated above this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders as follows:-

¶20

i) writ of mandamus/certiorari call for records with return.

¶21

ii) writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Party to publish the result of Petitioner.

¶22

iii) writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Party to select the Petitioner and issue appointed letter in his favor.

¶23

iv) pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper.”

¶24

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to an Advertisement under Annexure-4 dated 30.12.2022. The

¶25

// 2 //

¶26

Petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Civil), Kandhamal District under UR (Male) Category. He further contended that the Petitioner participated in the recruitment process duly selected. However, his name does not find place in the select list. It is further contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the basis of the mark secured by the petitioner, the Petitioner is although eligible to be appointed. However, persons, those who have secured less mark than the Petitioner their appearance short listed in the final merit list and they have been given appointment in the meantime. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application for a direction to the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Phulbani, Kandhamal to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment as Constable (Civil).

¶27

Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that the merit list has been prepared on the basis of the mark secured by the candidate and strictly in accordance with law. He further submitted that there is no deviation in the merit list. However, he further submitted that if the Petitioner has any grievance with regard to the final merit list that he should approach before the State Selection Board Odisha Police-Opposite Party No.2 which is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. In the event, the Petitioner approaches before the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the same in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶28

Considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties as well as keeping in view the background facts and the allegation of the Petitioner that although he has secured higher marks than some of the candidates who have been appointed by securing less mark than the Petitioner, this Court deems

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing to the Petitioner by filing a comprehensive representation along with all supporting documents before the Opposite Party No.2-State Selection Board Odisha Police within a period of 10 days from today. In the event, such a representation is filed by the Petitioner before the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such representation along with all supporting documents.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶32

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Digitally signed by
ANIL KUMAR ANIL KUMAR SAHOO
SAHOO Date: 2023.05.10
18:40:51 +05'30'

Soumya Ranjan Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumya Ranjan Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Rout Vs State of Odisha

Shyam Sundar Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Jayanta Kumar Patel Vs State of Odisha

Shyam Sundar Naik Vs Chief Resident Commission, Govt. of Odisha, New Delhi

Naresh Kumar Agrawal Vs Ramesh Kumar Agrawal

Kailash Nath Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha