High Court quashed a rejection order for OCS appointment, remanding the matter to consider the petitioner's application fresh in light of the Malaya Nanda Sethy Supreme Court judgment as previously directed.
Impugned order dated 02.03.2023 quashed; matter remanded to respondent to consider application afresh within two months.
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.8726 of 2023
Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra. …. Petitioner
Mr. Durgesh Narayan Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Iswar Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Order No.
ORDER 01.05.2023
“Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the order issued by the opposite party no.2 dated 02.03.2023 under Annexure-12 to the writ application.
And this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the opposite parties to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner, under OCS
// 2 //
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, taking into consideration the educational qualification of the petitioner, within a stipulated period.
And the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass any further order or orders as would be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Annexure-7 & 8 respectively and the matter was remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2-Director, Health Services, Heads of the Department Building, Bhubaneswar to consider the application of the Petitioner afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2022(II) OLR(SC)-1.
// 3 //
Health Services, Heads of the Department Building, Bhubaneswar. The Opposite Party No.2 vide order dated 02.03.2023 has again rejected the application of the Petitioner. He further contended that while rejecting the application of the Petitioner vide order dated 02.03.2023, the Opposite Party No.2 has not taken into consideration the law laid down in Malaya Nanda Sethy’s case (supra) as directed by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in the earlier writ petition of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
// 4 //
counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon a perusal of the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 under Annexure-12 and further keeping in view the factual background of the present case, this Court observes that the Opposite Party No.2 while disposing of the representation vide the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 under Annexure-12 has not taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy’s case (supra). This appears to be contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of writ petition. This Court further feels that the Opposite Party No.2-Director, Health Services, Heads of the Department Building, Bhubaneswar should have been more careful while disposing of the representation of the Petitioner and should have followed the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 in the earlier writ petition. Without referring to the judgment in Malaya Nanda Sethy’s case (supra), the Opposite Party No.2 has disposed of the application of the Petitioner by referring to the Notification of the G.A. & P.G. Department dated 17.02.2020.
Annexure-12 and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh and keeping in view the direction
// 5 //
given by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.34929 of 2022 and in the light of the judgment in Malaya Nanda Sethy’s case (supra) and disposed of the application of the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The decision so taken thereon shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
DEBASIS AECH Digitally signed by DEBASIS AECH Date: 2023.05.02 20:27:48 +05'30'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection order violated the direction to apply Malaya Nanda Sethy case principles.
Whether the rejection order was a speaking order sufficiently addressing legal principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Malaya Nanda Sethy vrs. State of Orissa and othersApplied¶21
2022(II) OLR(SC)-1
The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc.Relied on¶26
(Civil Appeal Nos.88428855 of 2022 decided on 3rd March, 2023)
Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra
State of Odisha
Director, Health Intelligence & Vital Statistics, Odisha
A.K. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
