Asharani Muni v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 Nov 2024WP(C)/18360/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gana Sikshyak engagement claim; quashing of rejection order dtd.08.02.2016 (Annexure-10) passed by Opposite Party No.3 despite earlier direction dtd.06.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No.17991 of 2015 that Opposite Party No.1 decide the claim; remand to Opposite Party No.1 for fresh decision within two months and communication to Petitioner; writ petition disposed of; High Court of Orissa, W.P.(C) Nos.18360 & 18359 of 2016, Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., 08.11.2024.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dtd.08.02.2016 (Annexure-10) passed by Opposite Party No.3 quashed; matter remitted to Opposite Party No.1 for a fresh decision as directed in the earlier writ petition within two months, result to be communicated to the Petitioner. ¶¶19

Asharani Muni Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) Nos.18360 & 18359 of 2016

¶3

Asharani Muni …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

08.11.2024 Order No.

¶10

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

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶12

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.08.02.2016 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-10.

¶13

4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that challenging the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in engaging the Petitioner as a Gana Sikshyak, Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.17991 of 2015. This Court vide order dtd.06.10.2015 while disposing the matter directed Opposite Party No.1 to consider the grievance of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the order was also communicated to Opposite Party No.1. But it is Opposite Party No.3 who

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

considered and rejected the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order under Annexure-10.

¶16

4.1 . It is contended that since this Court had directed the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of engagement as a Gana Sikshyak, Opposite Party No.3 could not have taken up the matter while rejecting the claim. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶17

5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State taking into account the earlier order passed by this Court also fairly contended that the matter be remitted to Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision as directed.

¶18

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court in view of the nature of order passed in the earlier Writ Petition is inclined to quash the order dtd.08.02.2016 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision as directed in the earlier writ petition within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result thereof to the Petitioner.

¶19

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

8. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case records.

¶23

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶24

Subrat