Disposed¶38

Dr. Debasis Sahu v. State of Odisha

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack – W.P.(C) No.23437 of 2023

Orissa HC25 Jun 2024WP(C)/23437/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC (Cuttack) | W.P.(C) No.23437 of 2023 | Dr. Debasis Sahu v. State of Odisha and others | Single judge: Murahari Sri Raman | Decided 25.06.2024 | OPSC recruitment to post of Assistant Professor (Dentistry), Advertisement No.13 of 2018-19; candidature rejected under Annexure-6; interim order 27.07.2023 allowed sealed-cover viva-voce participation; final merit list produced in sealed cover (Roll No.164 top, 79.257/115); leave to publish result; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to OPSC (opposite party no.3) to publish the recruitment result at the earliest; writ petition and pending I.As disposed of, the petitioner having no further grievance. ¶38

Dr. Debasis Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave granted to OPSC (opposite party no.3) to publish the recruitment result at the earliest; writ petition and pending I.As disposed of, the petitioner having no further grievance.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Dentistry) pursuant to Advertisement under Annexure-2 was rejected by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-6, should be allowed to participate in the selection process. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

On opening the sealed cover furnished by OPSC, this Court found that Roll No.164 had secured the highest grand total marks, i.e., 79.257 out of full marks 115, in the recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and Dentistry pursuant to Advertisement No.13 of 2018-19.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

In view of the situation obtaining (final merit list having been furnished to the Court and no objection from the petitioner), OPSC-opposite party no.3 was permitted to publish the results at the earliest.

¶36

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands disposed of, with all pending I.As likewise disposed of accordingly.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — W.P.(C) No.23437 of 2023 — Dr. Debasis Sahu v. State of Odisha and others — Murahari Sri Raman, J. — order dated 25.06.2024 (Order No.07). The petitioner, whose candidature for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Dentistry) pursuant to OPSC Advertisement No.13 of 2018-19 had been rejected by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-6, prayed for mandamus to participate in the selection process and for recognition of his service as Senior Lecturer/Assistant Professor under Sree Sai Dental Colleges and Research Institute, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh as equivalent to Tutor/Senior Resident. By interim order dated 27.07.2023 the Court permitted him to take the Viva Voce Test, its result to be kept in sealed cover and not published without the Court's leave; on 26.02.2024 and again on 13.03.2024 OPSC was directed to prepare and produce the final result in sealed cover, the Court clarifying that the interim restriction related only to the petitioner's viva-voce result and not to publication of the result generally. On 25.06.2024 the sealed cover was opened in Court: Roll No.164 headed the merit list with 79.257 marks out of 115. Counsel for the petitioner, stating that he had confined his prayer to participation in the Viva-voce Test and had no further grievance once the merit list was furnished, raised no objection; leave was granted to OPSC to publish the result, and the writ petition, together with any pending I.As, was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23437 of 2023

¶3

Dr. Debasis Sahu …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Nihal Rath, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Ms. Sumitra Mohanty, Advocate (for OPSC) Ms. Saraswati Mohapatra, Advocate (for intervenor)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER 25.06.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following

¶15

prayer:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased Admit the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed, Upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the said Rule absolute, Issue writ/ writs in the nature of

¶17

i. Mandamus directing Opposite Parties more particularly to the Opp. Party No.3 to allow the petitioner for participating in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in the Dentistry in terms of Advertisement under Annexure-2 by holding the decision of the O.P. No.3 under Annexure-6 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; and

¶18

ii. Direct the O.P. No.1 to recognize the service experience as Senior Lecturer/ Assistant Professor under Sree Sai Dental Colleges and Research Institute, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh as equivalent qualification as Tutor/ Senior Resident;

¶19

iii. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that by order dated 27.07.2023, this Court passed an interim order, which is as follows:-

¶23

“As an interim, it is directed that the petitioner be allowed to participate in the Viva Voce Test, which will be conducted by the OPSC. However, the result of the Viva Voce test shall be kept in sealed cover and shall not be published without leave of this Court.”

¶24

Ms. Sumitra Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 – Odisha Public Service Commission was directed to produce final result in a sealed cover before this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024.

¶25

This Court vide order dated 13.03.2024 passed the following

¶26

order:-

¶27

“***2. Miss. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Odisha Public Service Commission, produced a copy of instruction vide letter dated 13.03.2024. It appears that the OPSC was under a misconception that this Court had stayed publication of the result. The further processes in preparation of the final result. On the contrary the interim order was specific only to the State that the Petitioner was allowed to participate in the viva-voce test and such result was directed to be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be published withouts leave of this Court.

¶28

3. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court directs the OPSC to prepare the final result and place the same before this Court by putting the same in the sealed cover.

¶29

4. List this matter next week. Counter affidavit be filed in the meantime.”

¶30

Today when the matter is taken up, Ms. Sumitra Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 furnished photocopy of result of “recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and Dentistry pursuant to Advertisement No.13 of 2018-19” in a sealed cover in presence of

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

counsel for the parties. The sealed cover is opened and this Court finds that Roll No.164 has secured highest grand total marks, i.e., 79.257 out of full marks 115.

¶33

Mr. Nihal Rath, learned counsel submitted that in the writ petition, he has confined his prayer for allowing the petitioner to appear in the Viva-voce Test for recruitment of aforesaid post. Since the merit list has been furnished to the Court today by the counsel for the OPSC, he does not have any grievance to pursue the matter any further.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid submission request is made by Ms. Sumitra Mohanty, learned counsel for the OPSC for grant of leave to publish the result.

¶35

No objection is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

In view of aforesaid situation, OPSC-opposite party no.3 may publish the results at the earliest.

¶37

The photocopy of the result as furnished to the Court along with envelope (now opened) in the Court be kept on record for reference.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

13 All I.As pending, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

Suchitra

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 25-Jun-2024 18:33:14

¶45

Page 3 of 3

Dr. Debasis Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Debasis Sahu 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedia Narasimhulu Vs Baptist Church

Sashika Naik Vs Raibati Naik

Amir Ali Khan and Anr. Vs Samser Khan and Ors.

Ramaballav Lenka Vs Rotary Foundation

Ashok K.Sahoo Vs Sanatan Sahoo

Usha Sharma Vs Dinesh Ku.Pathak