Allowed

Rangadhar Paikaray v. State

Orissa HC23 Aug 2024WP(C)/18641/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned a dispute over employment seniority between the petitioner and a rival employee at Kaptipada College. The petitioner, appointed in 1987 with relevant qualifications, faced dismissal of his appeal after being denied access to attendance registers. The High Court found the rival employee's claim to be unsubstantiated due to record inconsistencies and quashed the Director

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed. Petitioner reinstated with notional continuity of service from May 1992. Opposite Party No.6 directed to be adjusted against a vacancy.

Rangadhar Paikaray Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2009

¶3

(Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

A.F.R. Rangadhar Paikaray … Petitioner

¶5

versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.P.Kar, Sr.Advocate with Mr. K.K.Sahoo, Advocate

¶8

versus-

¶9

For Opposite Party No.1 to 3 : Mr. S.N.Patanaik, A.G.A. For Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 : Mr. B.K.Pattanaik, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶10

W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2009 Page 1 of 25

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

23.08.2024.

¶13

Sashikanta Mishra,J . The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition

¶14

seeks to challenge the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by the Director, Higher Education whereby his appeal against the refusal of employment by the employer was rejected.

¶15

2 . The facts of the case are that the Petitioner

¶16

claims to have been appointed as P.E.T (+2) by the Secretary of the Governing Body of Kaptipada College in the district of Mayurbhanj as per appointment order dated 01.01.1987, pursuant to which he joined on 05.1.1987. After serving for about 5 years in the College, the Principal did not allow him to sign in the Attendance Register from November, 1992 even though he attended the College and performed his duties regularly. He was also deputed to examination duty. His repeated requests and representations submitted to the authorities did not evoke any response. As such,

¶17

he filed an appeal on 28.3.1995 before the Director,

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 2 of 25

¶19

Higher Education highlighting his grievance as above. It was further stated that the private opposite party was appointed in the meantime by the Governing Body only to harass him. The Director, after hearing all the parties involved and upon verification of the records allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.11.1995 by holding that though the records show that Ramakrushna Mahakud (private Opposite Party No.6) joined the College earlier than the Petitioner yet, the latter had the professional qualification (CPED) required for the post having acquired the same much earlier than the private Opposite Party. As such, it was held that the Petitioner is the first qualified P.E.T joining the College and is to be reckoned as such. Said order was challenged by the Governing Body as well as the private Opposite Party before this Court in two separate Writ Applications being O.J.C No.4085/1996 and O.J.C No.1481/1996. The Petitioner also filed a Writ Application being O.J.C No.1289/1996 for implementation of the order of the Director. All the three Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 3 of 25

¶21

of by this Court by a common order passed on 01.10.2007 by remanding the matter to the Director for hearing afresh as it was held that proper opportunity of hearing had not been granted. On being remanded, the Director passed an order on 11.6.2008 without hearing the Petitioner for which he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9868/2008, which was disposed of by order dated 19.9.2008 again remitting the matter to the Director for disposal afresh. Pursuant to such order, the appeal was reheard by the Director. In course of hearing, the Petitioner filed an application to call for the records of the appeal petition dtd.28.3.1995, disposed of on 24.11.1995 and also sought for several relevant documents. The appeal was however, disposed of by the Director by passing the impugned order without calling for the records and the documents. The Director in the impugned order held that the claim of the Petitioner of having been appointed on 5.1.1987 is doubtful and that in any case the private Opposite Party is senior to him as per the

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 4 of 25

¶23

date of joining. On such facts the Petitioner has filed

¶24

this Writ Petition with the following prayer;

¶25

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that your Lordships shall be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the record and peruse the connected records and after hearing the petitioner's Counsel, be further pleased to :-

¶26

(i)Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order of the Opp. Party No.2 bearing No.6C-III122-08-21472 dated 25.06.2009 under Annexure-10.

¶27

(ii)Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or issue any other Writ declaring that the petitioner is the first qualified PET joining the Kaptipada College, Nuasahi, Dist. Mayurbhanj.

¶28

(iii)Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or issue any other Writ directing the Opp. Party No.2 to produce the appeal records of the petitioner which was disposed of on 24.11.1995 by the Director,

¶29

(iv)Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp. Parties not to operate the impugned order of the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure10 during the pendency of the Writ Application;

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 5 of 25

¶31

(v)Issue any such other writ(s) or pass such other order(s) as deem just and proper in the interest of justice.

¶32

(vi) Allow this petition with costs.”

¶33

3 . Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

¶34

Principal of the College as well the Governing Body. It is stated that the private Opposite Party applied for the post of P.E.T. in the College on 20.10.1986 and having been selected on 21.10.1986, he was appointed on 30.10.1986 and he joined as P.E.T. on 15.11.1986. He applied for study leave on 29.4.1989 for CPED training and was granted such leave by the Governing Body vide Resolution dtd.02.5.1989, which he acquired and

¶35

passed on 12.11.1990. He resumed his work by joining in his previous post after training on 07.7.1990. Thus,

¶36

the private Opposite Party is the only P.E.T. of the College. It is further stated that the Petitioner was never appointed on 01.1.1987 and the appointment letter of the said date is a fake one as it does not contain any letter number nor is backed by any Governing Body resolution. As such, the question of signing in the Attendance Register does not arise. It is

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 6 of 25

¶38

also stated that there was inordinate delay on his part in approaching the Director against the so-called refusal to sign in the Attendance Register. Significantly, it is also stated that the College authority had intended to help the Petitioner in the event of bifurcation of +2 and +3 Degree College, so that he may be adjusted in the +3 College. On the other hand, the private Opposite Party was appointed and paid salary from 15.11.1986.

¶39

4 . Counter affidavit has also been filed by the private Opposite Party No.6. He also claims to have joined as P.E.T on 15.11.1986 and thereafter he went for training with permission of the Governing Body and after completion of training, he joined in his previous post on 07.7.1990. His services were approved and he has been brought under the G.I.A fold. It is further stated that the private Opposite Party stood first in the interview for the post and was selected. He has received salary under G.I.A Order, 2009, w.e.f. 01.2.2009. Thereafter, he got his salary w.e.f. 2015-

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 7 of 25

¶41

2016 under G.I.A Order, 1994 i.e. 1/3^rd , 2/3^rd and full salary w.e.f. 01.6.1994, 01.6.1996 and 01.6.1998 respectively. The Director has rightly decided the matter in favour of the private Opposite Party basing on the records of the Institution.

¶42

5 . Heard Mr. R.P.Kar, learned Senior counsel with Mr.K.K.Sahoo for the Petitioner, Mr.S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. B.K.Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body, the Principal as well as the private Opposite Party (Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6).

¶43

6 . Mr.Kar, learned Senior counsel, has forcefully argued that the impugned order is based on erroneous appreciation of facts and records. The College deliberately destroyed all its records and created new records only to favour the private Opposite Party. The Petitioner’s appeal was originally decided in his favour whereby he was held to be the first qualified PET of the College. The Petitioner has filed several documents in his favour, which clearly shows that there has been

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 8 of 25

¶45

manipulation of records by the Governing Body to favour the private Opposite Party. Mr.Kar refers to the so-called application dated 20.10.1986 of the private Opposite Party for the post of PET (Annexure-A/4) wherein he mentioned to have passed I.A. examination in the year 1989. The application itself being submitted in the year 1986, the private Opposite Party obviously could not have passed I.A. in 1989 which therefore, proves that the said document was prepared subsequently. Moreover, if the private Opposite Party joined on 15.11.1986, how could he sign in the Attendance Register on 03.11.1986. Moreover, if he joined on 15.11.1986 how could he be allowed to undergo training on 21.10.1986 and 12.11.1986. While one Governing Body resolution allowed him to undergo training within 4 years, another resolution allowed him 10 months. As against all these doubtful documents, there is clear evidence that the Petitioner was appointed by order dtd.01.1.87 pursuant to which he joined on 05.1.1987. Admittedly, he acquired CPED qualification in December, 1987 by which time, the

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 9 of 25

¶47

private Opposite Party was untrained. This by itself makes him the only qualified candidate for the post at least from December, 1987. The Director in his order had noted such facts from the records of the College, which was subsequently withheld and therefore, appropriate adverse inference needs to be drawn against the Governing Body.

¶48

7. Mr.S.N.Patanaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, fairly submits that the first order passed by the Director on 24.11.1995 reveals that the same was passed on the basis of records furnished by the College at different times during hearing. The Director noted that the Petitioner had passed CPED in 1987 while the private Opposite Party in 1990. However, in the impugned order, the Director expressed doubts with regard to the letter of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner, that it did not have a letter number nor there was any Governing Body resolution in its support.

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 10 of 25

¶50

8. Mr.B.K.Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 6 would submit that the Petitioner was never regularly appointed in the College, but was permitted to perform duties during the period in which the private Opposite Party, being regularly appointed, had gone for training. The then management had sympathetically engaged him as a stop-gap arrangement, so that in case of bifurcation of the College into +2 and +3 wings in future he may have a chance of appointment. However, there is absolutely no material or evidence to show that the Petitioner was ever appointed on regular basis. Mr. Pattanaik has referred to the relevant Governing Body resolutions and the copies of Attendance Registers and Pay Acquittance Roll. He submits that the Petitioner never signed in any Attendance Register. Further, even though his name appears at some places in the pay acquittance roll, it does not bear any signature, which proves that he was never appointed. On the contrary, there is ample proof to show that the private Opposite

¶51

Party was appointed in a selection process conducted

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 11 of 25

¶53

pursuant to an interview wherein he stood first. Moreover, his services were duly approved by the Director and he was also brought under the GIA fold.

¶54

9. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions raised, it would be apt to mention that ordinarily this Court would be slow to interfere with the orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities involving factual issues as the same is not permissible in a certiorari proceeding like the present case unless it is demonstrated that the findings are ex facie, erroneous or incorrect.

¶55

10. The instant case revolves around the dispute as to who was the duly appointed P.E.T of the College i.e., the Petitioner or private Opposite Party No.6. As already stated, the dispute was once decided by the Director vide order dtd.24.11.1995 in favour of the Petitioner. Said order was subsequently quashed by this Court and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal. On remand, the Director passed the impugned order taking an opposite view of what was

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 12 of 25

¶57

taken on the first occasion. In so far as the first order of the Director is concerned, the same was though quashed, yet such interference by this Court was not on merits, but entirely on the technical ground of absence of proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Perusal of the order dated 24.11.1995, copy enclosed as Annexure-4, would reveal that the Director verified the records of the College as produced by the Governing Body and found the Petitioner to have been in employment as P.E.T. w.e.f. 05.1.1987, though his letter of appointment does not bear dispatch number of the College. The Director further held that the Petitioner had passed C.P.E.D. in 1987 while the Opposite Party No.6 passed in 1990. On such basis, it was held that the Petitioner is the first qualified P.E.T. to join in the College and he is to be reckoned as such. In the impugned order however, the Director again perused the records and held that the Petitioner was appointed on 5.1.1987 and acquired C.P.E.D on 15.12.1987. His appointment letter was not believed for want of dispatch number and Governing Body

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 13 of 25

¶59

Resolution. On the other hand, the Director held that the Opposite Party No.6 was appointed by the Governing Body and joined on 15.11.1987. At the time of appointment, he was untrained and was permitted by the Governing Body to acquire CPED qualification. The Director further relied upon the Attendance Register and Acquittance Roll to hold that the Opposite Party No.6 was appointed as P.E.T., but ultimately held that he is senior to the Petitioner. Thus, neither on the first occasion nor on the subsequent occasion has the Director given a conclusive finding as to who between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.6 was validly appointed by the Governing Body.

¶60

11. As already stated, this Court would be slow to enter into the factual controversy, but then it has been argued that the findings of fact arrived at by the Director are against the weight of the evidence and materials on record. In order to appreciate the contentions so advanced, this Court finds that notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner’s letter of

¶61

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 14 of 25

¶62

appointment did not bear any dispatch number, fact remains that his name finds place in the acquittance roll for some period. It has been argued on behalf of the Governing Body, that mere mention of the name of the Petitioner in the acquittance roll is of no consequence since he never signed against his name.

¶63

This Court is not willing to accept this as a valid argument for the reason that if at all the Petitioner was not appointed, the question of his name appearing in the acquittance roll did not arise in the first place. The fact that his name so appears can only imply that he was in employment. Further, the Governing Body has passed certain resolutions. In the Resolution dated 02.2.1987, the name of the Petitioner appears as an ad

¶64

hoc appointee during absence of the Opposite Party No.6 due to training. This is a very significant material, inasmuch as admittedly as on that date i.e.02.2.1987 the Opposite Party No.6 had not gone on training. In fact, he was granted study leave for 10 months much later vide Governing Body Resolution dated 02.9.1989. Reference to the pay acquittance roll shows that the

¶65

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 15 of 25

¶66

names of both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.6 appear for the first time in December, 1998. While the Opposite Party No.6 signed against his name over the revenue stamp affixed, the Petitioner’s name without signature finds place on every month till May, 1992. This incongruity has not been explained by the Governing Body to the satisfaction of this Court. The fact that the Petitioner was appointed is also otherwise borne out from a sort of admission made by the Governing Body in the counter affidavit to the effect that ‘the College authority had intended to help the Petitioner in the event the +2 and +3 Degree College are bifurcated and the Petitioner may be adjusted in +3 College’. In the letter dtd.04.9.1995 of the Principal of the College, it is stated that the Petitioner was never appointed by the Governing Body and no appointment letter was issued to him. Further, his name has only been sent to accommodate him in +3 College in future and that the Secretary had made this arrangement to fulfil the present and future requirement of +2 and +3

¶67

College and also to satisfy both the persons of the

¶68

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 16 of 25

¶69

same locality where the College is situated. This is again an absurd plea not worthy of any belief. Materials have been placed before this Court by the Petitioner to show that he had filed a petition before the Director to call for certain documents from the Governing Body, but the same was never considered. The documents called for include the order of the Governing Body deputing him for examination duty. This appears to be a material omission on the part of the Director.

¶70

12. Another important aspect is the counter filed by the Deputy Director, Higher Education in the previous Writ Application i.e. OJC No.1289/1996. The following was stated under paragraph-3(ii);

¶71

“3(ii) That the Director of Higher Education (Opp.Party No.2) who is the appellate authority under the executive instructions issued, had to hold a hearing on the said appeal and accordingly, notices were given to the concerned authorities. The said hearing was conducted on 15.7.1995. The present petitioner submitted an appointment letter issued by the Secretary of the Governing Body of Kaptipada College. The same was shown to the Secretary of the Governing Body present at

¶72

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 17 of 25

¶73

the hearing who confirmed that it was issued by his predecessor. The Secretary of the Governing Body however took the stand that the Governing Body had appointed Sri Ramakarushna Mahakud (writ application OJC No.1481/1996) as P.E.T. of the College to join on 15.11.86. In a bid to resolve the controversy the Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa was requested to furnish the copies of the staff list received from the College in question from time to time. In on the staff list furnished 7.11.1987 one Sri S.K. Mohanty was shown as the P.E.T. In the staff list given by the College on 13.5.1989, the present petitioner was shown as the P.E.T. with H.S.C. and C.P.Ed. qualification. On verification of the records it was noticed that the name of the Petitioner finds mentioned as P.E.T. of the College. The Petitioner also produced documents in support of having acquired C.P.Ed. qualification in 1987. However, in the staff list furnished on 21.7.1993, Sri Ramakrushna Mahakud was shown as the P.E.T. of the College.”

¶74

13. Obviously, no malafides can be attributed to the Director, who held as above basing on verification of the documents maintained in the College. All these factors taken cumulatively would strongly suggest that the Petitioner was also in employment as P.E.T. in the College. Since his name was found by the Director to have been mentioned in the staff list furnished by the

¶75

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 18 of 25

¶76

College to the Secretary, CHSC on 07.11.1987 it can be safely concluded that the Petitioner was in fact appointed by order dtd.01.1.1987 pursuant to which he joined on 05.1.1987. It is undisputed that at that time he was untrained and acquired CPED qualification in December, 1987.

¶77

14. The claim that Opposite Party No.6 was appointed on 15.11.1986 is not without controversy either. According to the management, the Governing Body in its resolution dated 30.10.1986 decided to appoint a P.E.T. The next resolution dtd.24.12.1986 mentions about his appointment with the rider of getting himself trained within 4 years. The Governing Body Resolution dated 02.9.1989 mentions about grant of study leave to Opposite Party No.6 for 10 months. The above, without anything else shows that the Opposite Party No.6, even if appointed on 15.11.1986, had no training qualification but acquired the same only in 1989. Secondly, the Resolution dtd.2.2.1987 speaks of appointment of the Petitioner

¶78

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 19 of 25

¶79

on an ad hoc basis during the training period of Opposite Party No.6. This Court fails to comprehend this Resolution as the same was passed more than 2 years before the date when the Opposite Party No.6 actually went for training. This is another circumstance operating in favour of the Petitioner’s claim that he had been appointed as P.E.T. on 05.1.1987 and that the plea of such appointment being a stop-gap/ad hoc appointment is untenable. Another important aspect is the application of Opposite Party No.6 for the post of P.E.T. on 20.10.1986 wherein he claims to have passed I.A. examination in the year 1989. Obviously, the letter was prepared subsequently. The plea that the fact of passing I.A. in 1989 was inadvertently made is not worthy of belief. Yet another aspect that strikes to the mind is the fact that if the Opposite Party No.6 joined as P.E.T. on 15.11.1986, how could he have signed in the Attendance Register from 03.11.1986. This is also sought to be explained as an act done ‘unintentionally and accidentally’. This plea can be considered only to be rejected.

¶80

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 20 of 25

¶81

15. The most glaring infirmity and incongruity that strikes to the mind of the Court and is apparent on the face of the record is the divergent pleas taken by the Governing Body and the Opposite Party No.6 regarding his selection and appointment. As already stated, the Opposite Party No.6 claims to have submitted an application offering his services on 20.10.1986. Said letter does not speak of any advertisement having been published. Yet in his counter, he has taken the plea that the post was advertised pursuant to which there was an interview in which he stood first while the Petitioner stood second whereupon he was appointed. Very surprisingly, the management despite lending its full support to the claim of the Opposite Party No.6 has not whispered a word about the advertisement or interview in its counter.

¶82

16. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Governing Body filed certain further documents, copy of a local newspaper named ‘Rastradoota’ purportedly containing the so-called advertisement. Only a portion

¶83

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 21 of 25

¶84

of the first page of the newspaper and another page containing the advertisement was produced. This Court did not deem it proper to accept the document as the entire newspaper was never produced. That apart a so-called result-sheet of the interview purportedly held on 21.10.1986 was also produced, wherein the Opposite Party No.6 was shown to have been placed in the 1^st position and the Petitioner in the second position. An expert has signed at the bottom. There is an endorsement by hand purportedly by the Selection Committee to the effect - ‘recommended to appoint to Shri Ramakrushna Mahakuda in the post of P.E.T’. However, there is neither any signature nor any seal of the Selection Committee. In any event, the Governing Body not having taken a definite stand in its counter that the post was advertised and an interview was held on 21.10.1986, the aforementioned documents cannot be considered at all. Thus, this Court finds that the appointment of the Opposite Party No.6 is also not above board.

¶85

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 22 of 25

¶86

17. Such being the factual position, as between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.6, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the Petitioner deserves more credence as admittedly he had acquired CPED qualification at least from December, 1987 whereas the Opposite party No.6 acquired such qualification only in 1989. Therefore, the earlier finding of the Director in his order dtd.28.11.1995 appears to be more plausible and reasonable. Consequently, the finding in the impugned order cannot stand the scrutiny of law in view of the foregoing narration relating to the apparent incongruities inherent in the case projected by the Governing Body as well as the Opposite party No.6. It is more than evident that the Director has not considered the above vital aspects and has somewhat mechanically discarded the claim of the Petitioner. From what has been narrated herein before, such findings are not sustainable.

¶87

18. Having held as above, the question that confronts the Court is as to what relief can be granted

¶88

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 23 of 25

¶89

to the Petitioner. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not performed any duty after May, 1992 when he claims to have been refused permission to sign on the Attendance Register. On the other hand, the services of Opposite Party No.6 were duly approved and he was also extended grant in aid. More than 3 decades have passed in the meantime. It would therefore be iniquitous to direct removal of Opposite Party No.6 from employment at this distance of time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be best served if the Petitioner is reinstated in service without any back wages with notional continuity of service and the Opposite Party No.6 is directed to be adjusted against a vacancy either in the said institution or any other institution of the State.

¶90

19. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.6.2009 of the Director is hereby quashed. The Opposite Party authorities, particularly Opp.Party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pass necessary orders to (i) reinstate the Petitioner as PET

¶91

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 24 of 25

¶92

in the College by treating him as the 1^st qualified PET being appointed w.e.f. December 1987; (ii) to grant him notional continuity of service from May, 1992; and (iii)

¶93

to adjust Opp. Party No.6 either in the same College if another post of PET has been created in the meantime for the +3 College or against a vacancy existing in any other institution of the State. Necessary orders in this

¶94

regard shall be passed within two months from today.

¶95

…………….…………….

¶96

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶97

Ashok Kumar Behera

¶98

Signature Not Verified

¶99

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 27-Aug-2024 11:15:55

¶100

W.P.(C) No. 18641 of 2009 Page 25 of 25

Rangadhar Paikaray v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangadhar Paikaray v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakanti Dash Vs State and Ors.

Madhusudan Dalabehera Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Karada @ Karad @ Kadraka Vs State of Odisha

Laxmipriya Kudadha Vs State of Odisha

Aiswarya Jena Vs Gyana Ranjan Majhi

Pratap Kumar Meher Vs State of Odisha