Writ petition challenging rejection of appointment claim filed by a petitioner selected in 2021. Court found no illegality in the rejection order and disposed of the petition.
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.5983 of 2023
Subhasis Padhi
…. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others
Opp. Parties
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order
06.03.2023
No
1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Saa, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3 . This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order issued by the Opposite Party No.3 on 24th January, 2023. It is contended that the petitioner though was selected for the academic year 2021, but when he was not provided the appointment, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.26068 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 14th October, 2022, directed the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner. The same was disposed of vide impugned order at Annexure-7. It is contended that the petitioner even though was selected during the year 2021 but instead of providing the appointment, his claim has been rejected.
// 2 //
4 . From the impugned order, it is found that the petitioner even though was selected in the academic year 2021, he was never provided with the appointment. The petitioner never challenged the said action Opposite Party No.3 till approaching this Court in the year 2022. The petitioner when approached this Court, this Court directed Opposite Party No.3 take a decision on the same. After going through the order at Annexure-7, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the said order. Accordingly, while not inclined to entertain the prayer, it is observed that if in the coming year any advertisement is issued, the petitioner may take part in the said selection process.
Basudev
5 . The Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent was liable to appoint the petitioner who was selected in 2021 but was not provided with an appointment.
Whether the earlier order rejecting the petitioner's claim was legal and attracted no irregularity.
Subhasis Padhi
State of Odisha
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
