Disposed

Muktikanta Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Dec 2023WP(C)/32845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the State's inaction regarding their absorption into vacant posts based on prior qualifications before open recruitment. The Court disposed of the application by directing the respondent to decide the grievance within three weeks while continuing the recruitment process but halting final appointments until a decision is made.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation within three weeks and communicate the decision within four weeks thereafter.

Muktikanta Tripathy Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.32845 of 2023

¶3

Muktikanta Tripathy & Ors. …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. B.S.Tripathy(1), Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. P.C.Das,A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

05.12.2023

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

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State. Perused the Writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

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

¶18

“ On the facts and in the circumstances stated above, your petitioner, therefore, pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to;

¶19

i) Direct O.P. No.1 and 2 to take a lawful decision on the grievances of the petitioners’ as WMT having +2 Science qualification for their absorption and encadrement to the vacant posts of SCEW existing in the establishment of DSC & WS (O.P. No.2) as made in Annexure-7 and 11 series before completion of the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement dated 13.06.2023 in Annexure-12;

¶20

ii) Pass such other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice and fair play .”

¶21

Although it was submitted by learned counsel for the State that he has already received of parawise comments and likely to file the

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

counter within a weeks, Mr. Tripathy learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand contended that, unless the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible before any final decision is taken before the recruitment process under Annexure-12 is finalized then, this matter will become infructuous. Accordingly with the consent of both the counsels the matter is taken up for disposal. The short question involved in the present writ application is inaction on the part of the State Opposite Parties in deciding the pay of the persons who are working in the Watershed Management Training (WMT) under a scheme engaged by the State Opposite Parties before finalizing the recruitment process which has been initiated pursuant to the notification under Annexure-12 to the writ application for recruitment to the post of Soil Conservation Extension Worker (SCEW).

¶24

Mr Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the present petitioners are eligible to be appointed as SCEW the Opposite Parties are not consider their case to absorb the petitioner against the vacant post of SCEW before recruiting persons from the open market. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the State Opposite Parties the petitioner and similarly situated other persons approached the Government by filing a grievance petition for considering their case for absorption and encadrement of WMTs having +2 Science qualification to the vacant post of SCEW existing in DSC and WD. before recruiting persons from the open market as has been done under Annexure-12 in the writ application. Such representation submitted by the petitioner and similar situated other persons have been forwarded to the Director Soil Conservation DSC and WD Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 12.08.2021 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. Mr. Tripathy further contended

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

that the Director, DSC & WD is siting over the matter and has not taken any decision on the representation of the petitioner. As a result of the inaction of the director Opposite Party No.2, the future of the present petitioners has become uncertain. Moreover, unless a decision is taken expeditiously by the Opposite Party No.2 as has been requested by the Under Secretary to Government vide is letter dated 12.08.2021 under Annexure-8 the posts of SCEW are going to be filled up causing serious prejudice to the present petitioner.

¶27

Learned Addl. Standing counsel on the other hand submitted that the representation submitted by the present petitioner and similarly situated other person is under consideration of the Government. He further submitted that it appears that the matter is pending with the Director, Soil Conservation & Watershed Development. In such view of the matter the learned Addl. Standing counsel further contended in the event the Court directs the Opposite party No.2 to take a final decision pursuant to letter dated 12.08.2021 under Annexure-8, if no such decision has been taken in the meantime, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time, then he will have no objection to the same. 7. Considering such submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, and on careful examination of the background facts, as well as keeping in view the urgency of the matter that posts of SCEW are going to be filled up through the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-12 to the writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision within a period of three weeks from today as has been requested by the Government vide letter No.15392/A&F.E dated 12.08.2021 under Annexure-8 to the writ application and the same be communicated to the Government as

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

Rubi

¶30

expeditiously as possible and the entire process be concluded within the aforesaid period. Further, it is directed that till a decision is taken by the Director, DSC & WD, the opposite party shall continue with the recruitment process pursuant to Annexure-12. However no final appointment order shall be issued until a final decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner forwarded to the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-8 to the writ application. Any decision taken on the representation of the petitioner be communicated the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.

¶31

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

¶32

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Dec-2023 10:49:06

Muktikanta Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muktikanta Tripathy 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

Ram Chandra Karjee Vs Union of India

Binayak Bahinipati Vs State of Odisha

Bibhudutta Satapathy Vs Secretary to Govt Water Resources Dept.

Manoj Kumar Behera Vs State of Orissa

Krutibas Pattanayak Vs State of Odisha

Srinibas Purohit Vs State of Odisha