Disposed

Jayanta Kumar Patel v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 May 2023WP(C)/13058/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to quash orders rejecting his representation for a Driver post and to appoint him. Court directed respondent authority to reconsider representation due to subsequent vacancy and decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Authority directed to consider petitioner's representation for vacant Driver post and decide within two months, communicating within two weeks thereafter.

Jayanta Kumar Patel Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.13058 of 2023

¶3

Jayanta Kumar Patel

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr.S.B.Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr.A.Behera, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

08.05.2023

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

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶17

“ Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the Opp.Parties to quash the Office Letter No.13228 dated 15.11.2022 and Office Order No.777 dated 03.02.2023 under Annexure-12 and 14 respectively.

¶18

And further be pleased to direct the Opp.PartyNo.3 to appoint the Petitioner as Driver against the vacant post under Annexure-15.

¶19

And further be pleased to direct the Opp.PartyNo.3 in case there is no way then the Petitioner is to be appointed against the coming vacancies of the Director.

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

Or pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner had represented before the Collector, Sundargarh by filing a representation pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 08.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.32604 of 2022. The representation of the Petitioner was considered by the Collector, Sundargarh and the same was rejected vide order dated 03.02.2023 under Anexure-14 on the ground that no such post is available at the moment. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on retirement of another driver, the post is lying vacant. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner can very well be considered in the vacant post, which has arisen due to retirement of a driver namely Arjun Tanty. He further submitted that the Petitioner has again filed a representation on 06.03.2023 under Annexure-16 and the same is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.2 for consideration.

¶23

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the prayer of the Petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court has already been rejected. However, in the event there is any vacancy in the post of driver on retirement of one driver namely Arjun Tanti and in the event the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.2 for reconsideration of his case, there is every occasion for the authority to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶24

Considering such submission and keeping in view the factual backgrounds as well as the development that has taken place after rejection of the earlier representation, this Court disposes of the

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

matter by directing the Opposite Party no.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 keeping in view the vacancy that has arisen subsequently and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶28

RKS

¶29

RAMESH Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2023.05.09 SINGH 15:52:12 +05'30'

¶30

( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

Jayanta Kumar Patel v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanta Kumar Patel 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

Bishwonath Behera Vs Bhabani Shankar Chayani, Vice Chairman, C.D.A.

Prakash Chandra Mohanty Vs Gobinda Chandra Sethy., I.A.S

Raghunath Dash Vs Bhakta Charan Mohanty, Enginr. in Chief, Water Resources, Odisha

Niranjan Rout Vs State of Odisha

Shyam Sundar Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Supriya Dei Vs State of Odisha