Disposed

Supriya Dei v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 May 2023WP(C)/13351/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding appointment eligibility for the post of Pharmacist as nothing remains to be adjudicated following a previous order in a related matter. The petitioner was directed to approach the Opposite Party No. 4 with a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a fresh representation with Opposite Party No.4 within two weeks; similar benefit to be extended if applicable within eight weeks.

Supriya Dei 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.13351 of 2023

¶3

Supriya Dei

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others ….

¶7

Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. along with Ms.B.S.Rayguru, C.G.C. (For O.P. No.5 & 6)

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA ORDER

¶11

Order No.

¶12

08.05.2023

¶13

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

¶14

Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned D.S.G.I. along with Mr.B.S.Rayguru, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 & 6. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶16

“It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble

¶17

Court be graciously pleased to pass following relief(s):

¶18

(i) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to Admit the writ petition and call for the records/documents,

¶19

(ii) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the opp. parties for modification of the impugned eligibility

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

criteria of the advertisement under Annexure-3 so also the impugned letter dated 10.12.2021 under Annexure-10 relating to allowing the only Diploma in Pharmacy candidates by declaring the same as erroneous and void ab-initio in view of the statutory provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 so also the Regulation issued by the Pharmacy Council of India under Annexure-11, 11/1 & 12, 12/1,

¶22

(iii) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to further direct Opp. Parties for allowing the higher qualified B.Pharma candidates in the recruitment as they are became automatically eligible in the matter of recruitment for the post of Pharmacist as per notification dtd. 16.07.2021 under Annexure-11/1 with further directing the Opp. Party No.4 & 5 to issue the order of appointment in favour of the petitioner in view of her selection in the recruitment test so also verification of her documents made as per Annexure-7 & 8 within a time bound period for the interest of justice.

¶23

And may pass any other Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper.”

¶24

At the outset, Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition was directly and substantially issue in W.P.(C) No.36662 of 2022. The matter which was involved in the earlier writ petition as well as in the present writ petition arising out of the same selection procedure and the self-same advertisement. He further submitted that vide order dated 28.2.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.36662 of 2022, this Court has already decided the issue and has finally come to the following conclusion:-

¶25

“12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, considering the rival contentions and further upon a careful consideration of the materials placed before this Court, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner having B. Pharm Degree and the same being a higher degree than the prescribed degree of Diploma in Pharmacy is also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

Pharmacist as has been decided by the Pharmacy Council of India. Further such view of this Court gets support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puneet Sharma vrs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (supra), this Court is also of the considered view that Pharmacy Council of India issued clarification, which is a statutory body so far Pharmacy course is concerned. The Opposite Parties should not have taken stand different from the Pharmacy Council. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the letter dated 10.12.2021 under Annexure-10 issued by the Directorate of Health Services, Odisha, Bhubaneswar does not depict the correct picture. The letter dated 10.12.2021 under Annexure-10 so far it relates to the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Pharmacist is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Directorate of Health Services, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh in the light of the analysis made hereinabove. Further, the Superintendent, Saheed Laxman Naik Medical College and Hospital, KoraputOpposite Party No.4 is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, if the post is not filled up till date and subject to verification of the name of the petitioner as has been recommended by the OSSSC for such appointment.”

¶28

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the order passed in Kadambini Sethia’s case has already been implemented by the State authorities under Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition.

¶29

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present writ petition. Therefore, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.4 by filing a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today and in the event the Petitioner approaches before the Opposite Party No.4, as has been directed hereinabove, the Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

view the principle decided by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.36662 of 2022 and in the event Opposite Party No.4 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner is placed in the same footing with the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36662 of 2022, then similar benefit be also extended to the present Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of authenticated copy of this order before the Opposite Party No.4. Further, the Opposite Party No.4 is directed to act upon production of authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition

¶33

stands disposed of.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
RAMESH Digitally signed by
RAMESH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2023.05.09
SINGH 15:57:13 +05'30'

Supriya Dei v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supriya Dei 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

Cases cited

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

Jayanta Kumar Patel Vs State of Odisha