This order, in a writ petition challenging the non-implementation of reservation policy, directed the Collector, Gajapati, to consider the petitioners case for regularization under the Odisha Reservation in Services Act after nearly twenty years of service.
Petitioners directed to be considered for regularization in accordance with law.
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.7703 of 2020
Asharani Pani & Ors.
…. Petitioners
Mr. Bijaya Kumar Mishra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Debasish Nayak, A.G.A.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order
No.
ORDER
13.09.2023
1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2 . Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
3 . The Petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the illegal action of the Opposite Parties in not properly implementing the reservation policy while appointing the Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak (SSS) in the district of Gajapati.
4 . Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners were appointed in 2003 being SC category and even after rendering uninterrupted service of nearly twenty years as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak (SSS) and accordingly they should have been regularized in 2009.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
However, they were not regularized due to faulty calculation and application as per the mandate of ORV Act.
5 . Further, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that there are forty posts allocated for SEBC candidates which are lying vacant and no person has been regularized for SEBC category. If the law permits the Opposite Party No.2 shall put forth his proposal before the Opposite Party No.1 in coordination with the concerned authorities i.e. Opposite Party Nos.1, 3 and 5 and try to find out the solution to the problem faced by the present Petitioners. As the Petitioners being experienced and have served for twenty years in the same job, they deserve to be regularized, if vacant posts are available.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances made, the Collector, Gajapati is directed to consider the case of the present Petitioners for regularization in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Digitally SignedSigned by: SUMITRA NAYAK Judge Designation: Jr. Stenographer Sumitra Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 16-Sep-2023 15:04:18
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioners appointed as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak in 2003 should be regularized after nearly twenty years of service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
nullReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Asharani Pani & Ors.
State of Odisha
S.K. Panigrahi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
