Ratnakar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Dec 2024WP(C)/14345/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC (Cuttack), W.P.(C) No.14345 of 2020, decided 10.12.2024 (Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy): Government order dated 25.06.2019 rejecting the Tribunal-directed policy consideration (UGC guidelines dated 08.10.1992) for creating promotional avenue for existing Demonstrators to the post of Lecturer quashed for non-assignment of reasons; reliance placed on 2012(1) OLR-87 (Akhila Kumar Mohapatra) and 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 (Smt. Parvati Dash); O.P. No.1 directed to take fresh decision per Tribunal order dated 03.10.2018 within 3 (three) months; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.06.2019 passed by Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-16 quashed; O.P. No.1 directed to take a fresh decision in the light of the Tribunal's order dated 03.10.2018 within three months from receipt of this order. ¶¶39

Ratnakar Das Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, rejecting the petitioner's claim for creation of promotional avenue for existing Demonstrators without assigning any reason, is sustainable in the eye of law on the ground of non-assigning of reasons. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

While rejecting the petitioner's claim vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2019, O.P. No.1 assigned no reason save and except indicating therein that the State Govt. did not find any sufficient justification to take any policy decision.

¶¶34

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned order is completely silent as to the reason on the part of the Govt. in not taking the policy decision as directed by the Tribunal, the Court, placing reliance on the decisions in Akhila Kumar Mohapatra (2012(1) OLR-87) and Smt. Parvati Dash (2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736) as cited (supra), inclined to quash the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-16.

¶¶38

Key takeaways

While quashing the impugned order, the Court directed O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2018, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition challenging the order dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure-16) of Govt.-O.P. No.1 whereby the petitioner's claim for creation of promotional avenue for existing Demonstrators in Govt. Colleges to the post of Lecturer — earlier directed by the Tribunal (O.A. No.649(C) of 2016, order dated 03.10.2018) to be addressed through a policy decision in terms of UGC guidelines dated 08.10.1992 — was rejected without assigning any reason. Finding the impugned order completely silent on reasons (its only content being that the State Govt. found no sufficient justification for a policy decision), and placing reliance on 2012(1) OLR-87 (Akhila Kumar Mohapatra) and 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 (Smt. Parvati Dash), the Court (Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) quashed the order dated 25.06.2019 and directed O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision in the light of the Tribunal's order dated 03.10.2018 within a period of 3 (three) months; the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14345 of 2020

¶3

Ratnakar Das

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S. Behera, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

10.12.2024

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

¶15

2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

¶16

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 25.06.2019 so passed by Govt-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-16. Vide the said order, direction issued by the Tribunal to the State Govt. to take a policy decision with regard to creating promotional avenue for existing Demonstrators in Govt. Colleges for their promotion to the post of Lecturer was rejected.

¶17

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

that since there is no promotional avenue for existing Demonstrators working in Govt. Colleges to the post of Lecturer, the matter was agitated before the Tribunal in O.A. No.649(C) of 2016. The Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2018 disposed of the matter with the following directions:-

¶20

“8. Hence, the respondent No.1 is directed to place the matter before the Government to take policy decision in terms of UGC guidelines dated 08.10.1992 in respect of promotional avenue of existing Demonstrators in Govt. Colleges within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter re-consider the case of the applicant within one month and convey the result thereof to the applicant.”

¶21

4 .1. It is contended that even though the Tribunal directed Govt. to take policy decision in terms of the UGC guideline dated 08.10.1992 with regard to creating promotional avenue for existing Demonstrator, but without assigning any reason, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 under Annexure-16.

¶22

4 .2. It is contended that since no reason has been assigned while rejecting the petitioner’s claim, on the ground of non-assigning of reason, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed in the decision of this Court reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 (Smt. Parvati Dash and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Others) and 2012(1) OLR-87 (Akhila Kumar Mohapatra Vrs. State of Odisha and Others) .

¶26

4.3 . This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the judgment reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-

¶27

“8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusion are based.

¶28

10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510]”.

¶29

4.4 . This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-

¶30

“13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders. Nonrecording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner”.

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate though supported the impugned order and made submission taking into account the stand taken in the counter affidavit, but contended that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, O.P. No.1 has not assigned any reason while rejecting the claim vide the impugned order.

¶34

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that seeking creation of promotional avenue for existing Demonstrators working in Govt. College, petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.649(C) of 2016. The Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2018, directed O.P. No.1 to place the matter before the Govt. to take a policy decision in terms of the UGC guideline dated 08.10.1992, for creation of promotional avenue for existing Demonstrator in govt. colleges to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of lecturer. But as found, while rejecting the said claim vide the impugned order, O.P. No.1 has not assigned any reason save and except, indicating therein that State Govt. did not find any sufficient justification to take any policy decision.

¶35

6. 1. Since the impugned order is completely silent with regard to the reason on the part of the Govt. in not taking a policy decision as directed, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Akhila Kumar

¶36

Page 4 of 5

¶37

// 5 //

¶38

Mohapatra and Smt. Parvati Dash as cited (supra), this Court is inclined to quash order dated 25.06.2019 so passed by Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-16. While quashing the same, this Court directs O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.10.2018, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶39

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶40

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶41

Basudev

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Dec-2024 13:37:11

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Ratnakar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnakar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Dillip

Muralidhar Mahar Vs State

Dr. Mamata Manjari Panda Vs State of Odisha

Gb of Prasannamani College of Physical Education and Yoga,Tigiria Vs State of Orissa

Manoj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Durga Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha