The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a selection process involving a private opposite party dating back to 2009, noting that entertaining the matter after a lapse of 14 years would unsettle the settled position and create an embargo.
The writ petition was dismissed and no further remedies were granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18130 of 2010
Sebati Majhi
…. Petitioner(s) Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Collector, Angul & Ors.
…. Opposite Party(s) Mr. S.P. Panda, Addl. Govt. Adv.
CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
Order No.
12.
ORDER 30.01.2023
1. This writ petition involves the following prayer:-
“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(i) quash the impugned order as at Annexure-7 and select list as at Annexure-5 as they are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the guidelines; (ii) direct the opp.parties to conduct the selection afresh by verifying the documents of all the candidtes in their presence with prior intimation and issue engagement order in favour of the candidate, who is more meritorious; (iii) pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice;”
2. Reading the entire order-sheet this Court finds, there is no interim order operating in the engagement of the private Opposite Party herein. The proceeding herein involves a selection involving private Opposite Party in the year 2009. We are now in 2023. Almost 14 years have already passed in the meantime creating embargo for interfering in such issues. Entertaining such issues after so much loss of time will unsettle the settled position long since.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
3. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Biswanath Rath) Judge
Ayaskanta Jena
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction can be exercised in a selection matter pending for over 14 years?
Whether the court is entitled to interfere in the selection process involving a private opposite party after such a lapse of time?
Sebati Majhi
Collector, Angul & Ors.
Biswanath Rath
Ayaskanta Jena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
