Pintu Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the

¶22

following prayer :

¶23

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to pass following relief(s):-

¶24

(i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit & allow this writ petition

¶25

(ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of termination issued by the Opp. party no-3 under Annexure- 10. dtd. 03.12.2021 in respect of the petitioner, (iii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to further direct the Opp. Parties for allowing the petitioner to continue in his post of contractual Pharmacist as usual with all consequential service & financial benefit for the interest of justice.

¶26

(iv) The Hon'ble court be pleased to pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as deems fit & proper for the bonafide

¶27

// 2 //

¶28

interest of justice.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Rakesh Baroi vs. State of Odisha & ors . in W.P.(C) No.36664 of 2022 . He further contended that the issue involved in the Rakesh Baroi’s case is almost identical to the facts of the present case. While disposing of the aforesaid matter, this Court had categorically come to a conclusion that the Petitioner having B. Pharma degree and the same being a higher degree than the prescribed degree of Diploma in Pharmacy is also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Pharmacist as has been decided by the Pharmacy Council of India. Moreover, such view taken by this Court in support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puneet Sharma vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. reported in AIR 2021 SC 2221 . Accordingly, while disposing of the Rakesh Baroi’ s case (supra), this Court while setting aside the letter dated 10.12.2021 under Annexureissued by the Director Health Service Odisha, Bhubaneswar, further, directed the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh in the light of the analysis made in that case.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also contended that the aforesaid order in Rakesh Baroi ’s case (supra) has been confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.2625 of 2023 vide order dated 15.11.2023. After confirmation of the order by a Division Bench of this Court, the Opposite Parties have implemented the order passed by this Court vide their order No.3236 dtd.19.02.2024, in the above named Rakesh Baroi has been appointed as a Pharmacist pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.12.2020 on the recommendation of Odisha SubOrdinate Staff Selection Commission by the Health & Family Welfare Dept., Govt. of Odisha.

¶31

Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand

¶32

// 3 //

¶33

contended that the case of the Petitioner is required to consider by the Opposite Parties keeping in view the order passed by this Court in the above named Rakesh Baroi ’s case (supra). In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that he will have no objection, in the event this case is remanded back to the Opposite Parties to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Baroi ’s case, which has been confirmed in writ appeal by the Division Bench, within a stipulated period of time.

¶34

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned rejection order under Annexure-10 dated 03.12.2021. Further, the Opposite Party No.3 is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the above noted case and in the event it is found that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the above named Rakesh Baroi , then the similar benefits be extended in favour of the Petitioner by reinstating the Petitioner in service, if there is no other legal impediment within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such a decision.

¶35

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application as well as the I.A. stands disposed of.

¶36

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶37

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶38

Anil

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Mar-2024 09:39:49

Pintu Majhi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Majhi 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Rajat Mohanty Vs Shallini Pandit, IAS

Arati Behera Vs Anu Garg, Development Commnr. Cum Addl. Chief Secy., Water Resources Dept.

Biswanath Dalei Vs State of Orissa

Kisu Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ghana Shyama Jena Vs Chairman, Odisha Rural Housing and Development Corporation Ltd., Khurda

Basudev Naik Vs State of Odisha