Disposed

Nirakar Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Feb 2023WP(C)/3807/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a rule nisi to direct the State of Odisha/Subordinate Staff Selection Commissioner to appoint him as Forest Guard or consider his pending representation regarding the post. The court disposed of the matter by directing the respondent to consider the representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation under Annexure-8 within six weeks.

Nirakar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3807 of 2023

¶3

Nirakar Panda …. Petitioner Mr.D.R.Bhokta, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and another

¶6

…. Opposite Parties Mr.Saswat Das, A.G.A.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

20.02.2023

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

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶15

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

¶16

“ The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs shall not be issued;

¶17

i) Directing the Opposite Party No.2 to issue order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner for the post of Forest Guard (F.G.);

¶18

ii) If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute; and

¶19

iii) To pass such other order/orders ad to issue such other writ/writs as would afford complete relief to the Petitioners;”

¶20

In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ventilating his grievance has submitted representation before the Secretary, Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, Opposite Party No.2

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

under Annexure-8 on 20.01.2022. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said representation is pending as of now. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a direction be issued to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-8 within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that he has no objection if the representation of the Petitioner is considered by the Opposite Party No.2, which is stated to be pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶24

Considering the limited nature of grievance of the Petitioner, the writ application is disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the Opposite Party no.2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-8 in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-6 by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

¶25

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

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶27

RKS

¶28

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

Nirakar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirakar Panda 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

Prafulla Kumar Pradhan Vs Satyabrata Sahu,Ias

Dolagobinda Samantasinghar Vs Satyabrata Sahu,Ias

Manguli Pradhan Vs Satyabrata Sahu,Ias

Amruta Priyambada Vs Chancellor,Ravensha

Ashok Ku.Meher Vs State

Sunil Kumar Bhanja Vs State of Odisha