Dismissed

Dr.Ashok Ku.Sahoo v. State

Orissa HC24 Apr 2023WP(C)/12642/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging an OPSC advertisement for Rasa Shastra posts. The petitioners sought age relaxation for state service candidates. The Court held that since the advertised posts were not filled and a new advertisement was issued, the cause of action no longer survived.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; liberty granted to file/rely upon writ petitions challenging the second advertisement.

Dr.Ashok Ku.Sahoo Vs State — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 11622 of 2014 And

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 12642 of 2014

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 11622 of 2014
Dr. Nishakar Pattanaik ….. Petitioner
Mr. B. Mohanty, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ….. Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr.Adv.[OPSC]
Mr. S. Mallik, Adv.[O.P.No.5]
W.P.(C) No. 12642 of 2014
Dr. Ashok Kumar Sahoo ….. Petitioner
Mr. B. Mohanty, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ….. Opposite Parties
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr.Adv.[OPSC]
Mr. S. Mallik, Adv.[O.P.No.5]
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
24.04.2023

¶5

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 10.

¶6

Heard Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties; Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-OPSC; and Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

¶7

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the advertisement issued by OPSC under Annexure-2 so far as the post of Rasa Shastra is concerned.

¶8

Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

that out of four posts advertised by the OPSC under Annexure-2, two posts meant for U.R. category, one for SEBC and other for S.C. and, as such, the petitioners claim two posts for appointment under U.R. category and SEBC category. It is vehemently contended that petitioners have sought for interpretation of clause-(iii) of the advertisement, so far as it relates to age, which provides that the upper age limit is relaxed by 18 years, i.e., up to 50 (fifty) years in case of Aurveda Medical Officers who are already in State Government service. It is contended that subject to maximum of 50 years upper age limit shall be relaxed up to 18 years, in case of those candidates, who are in the State Government service. As such, if this condition is satisfy then only the benefit age relaxation can be extended. It is contended that though opposite parties no.4 and 5 do not satisfy the requirement, but their cases have been considered. However, ultimately they have not been given appointment in respect of the post advertised.

¶11

Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that since the posts advertised have not been filled up by opposite parties no.4 and 5 or by any other means and, as such, in the meantime second advertisement has come, the present advertisement has become ineffective for consideration by this Court. Consequentially, dismissal of the writ petition is sought for. 6. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the contention raised by learned State Counsel, in view of the fact that the posts which have been advertised under Annexure-2 in respect of Rasa Shastra for U.R. and SEBC category have not yet been filled up. 7. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the posts advertised have not been filled up by any of the persons, including opposite parties no.4 and 5, any age relaxation provided under Sub-clause-(iii) of Clause-3 of the advertisement has become otiose . More so, since as per the existing advertisement the

¶12

Page 2 of 3

¶13

Ashok

¶14

posts have not been filled up and in the meantime fresh advertisement has already been issued, and, as such, the petitioners have already filed writ petition challenging the second advertisement, no cause of action survives for the petitioners in the present writ petition.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedy in those writ petitions, which have been filed by them challenging the second advertisement issued by the authority.

¶16

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶17

(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE

¶18

Page 3 of 3

Dr.Ashok Ku.Sahoo v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ashok Ku.Sahoo v. State

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

Dr.Prakash Ch Parida Vs Chandra Se.Kumar

Himansu Se.Mishra Vs Collector,Puri

M/S.Sradhananda Rice Mill Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Odisha,Collector,Cuttack

M/S.Siemens Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Akshya Ku.Sahoo Vs State and Ors.

Maheswar Mohanty Vs Anil Kumar Samal