Disposed

Kameswar Gouda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Dec 2023WP(C)/12333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition challenging an enquiry report and seeking direction for appointment as Banking Assistant, the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post within eight weeks and continued the existing interim protection order during that period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6 to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as Banking Assistant within eight weeks; continuation of interim order for eight weeks.

Kameswar Gouda Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.12333 of 2018

¶3

Kameswar Gouda

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Swapnil Roy, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Advocate for O.P. Nos.5 & 6

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.12.2023

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

¶17

Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 by filing a vakalatnama in Court today and the same be kept on record.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶19

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer :

¶20

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and Issue Rule "NISI" to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to;

¶21

(i) Why the impugned enquiry report dated 29.06.2018 of O.P. No.2 communicated vide letter dated 29.06.2018 under Annexure-12 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside; and

¶22

(ii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be direction to allow the petitioner to continue as Banking Assistant in terms of the order issued by the Bank on 08.02.2018 under

¶23

// 2 //

¶24

Annexure-10;

¶25

And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ /writs and any other order as deem fit be passed;”

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset submitted that challenging an enquiry report dated 29.06.2018 submitted by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Odisha and communicated vide letter dated 29.06.2018, the Petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2018 by filing the present writ application. The present writ application was accepted by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2018 and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. Vide an interim order dated 20.07.2018 passed in I.A. No.10167 of 2018, a coordinate bench of this Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner till the next date. Such Interim order was extended vide order dated 19.08.2019, thereafter the matter has not been listed. Today the matter has been listed for orders for passing an order in I.A. No.18422 of 2023.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the present writ application Rule 7-C of the Central Cooperative Bank, Staff Service Rules, 2011 has been amended in the meantime and as per such amendment, post of Banking Assistant to the extent of 60% and were to be filled up by direct recruitment and 30% from amongst employees of affiliated PACS and 10% from the support staff of the Bank. In view of the aforesaid amendment to Rule 7-C of the Rules, 2011, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner is having eligibility for being appointed to the post of Banking Assistant, his case is to be considered by the Opposite PartyBank in the light of the amendment Rule 7-C of the Rules, 2011. He also contended that 9 numbers of Banking Assistant posts are lying vacant to be filled up from among the eligible non-cadre Secretary including the present petitioner. He also contended that the Board of Director of the Bank in its meeting held on 18.01.2018 took a decision

¶28

// 3 //

¶29

which was approved in the meeting held 06.02.2018 vide resolution No.7 pursuant to such resolution No.7 the case of the Petitioner has been recommended for appointment as Banking Assistant. In the table appended to the Resolution No.7, the name of the Petitioner finds at Serial No.4. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the amendment in the rules and keeping in view the resolution of the Board of Management of the Bank and there is no impediment in considering the case of the Petitioner for appointment as a Banking Assistant.

¶30

Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 on the other hand contended that no doubt of the Staff Service Rule have been amended in the meantime, however, the appointment to the post of Banking Assistant, he shall be made only on the basis of eligibility of non-Cadre Secretaries like the Petitioner. In such view of the matter learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 submitted that in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6 to consider the case of the Petitioner in view of the amendment provision and subject to Petitioner satisfying the eligibility criteria within a stipulated period of time then he will have no objection to such a direction.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts and taking into consideration the materials available on record and further taking into consideration the amendment of the Staff Service Rules, 2011 particularly the Rule 7-C, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party Nos.5 and 6 to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Banking Assistant keeping in view the amended Rule of the Rule 2011 as well as the eligibility of the Petitioner and the recommendation of the Board of Management dated

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

18.01.2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Further, it is directed that the interim order dated 20.07.2018 passed in the present writ application shall be continued for a period of eight weeks or till a decision is taken as has been directed hereinabove.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶36

Anil

¶37

( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Dec-2023 15:22:47

Kameswar Gouda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kameswar Gouda 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

Pradeep Ku.Rana Vs Fci

Prasanta Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Jhunulata Das Vs State of Odisha

Mahebub Allam Vs State of Odisha

Chandra Sekhar Pujhari Vs State of Odisha

Krishnalal Duria Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi