Disposed

Dipak Kumar Khatua v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC2 Dec 2024WP(C)/23752/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by an applicant for engagement as Part Time Physical Education Instructor who claimed his name was wrongly reflected in the published sports category list. The court directed the authority to take a decision on his claim considering his objection within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No. 3 to decide the petitioner's claim per Annexure-7 objection within three months; interim order continuing till decision.

Dipak Kumar Khatua Vs State of Orissa — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 23752 of 2017

¶2

Dipak Kumar Khatua

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner Mr. S. Mahunta, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶10

02.12.2024

¶11

Order No. 05

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Heard Mr. S. Mahunta, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶14

This writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶15

“In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to:

¶16

i) Quash the sports list so far as the petitioner candidature is concerned at annexure-4 by concurrently holding the same are bad, illegal and can' not be sustainable in the eye of law.

¶17

ii) And further be pleased to hold/ declare the petitioner is eligible to select/appoint for the post of part time Physical Education Instructor.

¶18

iii) And pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶19

Page 1 of 3.

¶20

It is contended that basing on the advertisement issued by Opp. Party No. 3 on 01.06.2016 under Annexure-1, Petitioner submitted his application for engagement as Part Time Instructor. It is contended that even though Petitioner made the application for consideration of his claim taking into account his B.PED qualification, but by taking the same as not the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, Petitioner’s name was wrongly reflected in the list published for Sports category candidates under Annexure-4. Challenging such wrong placement of the Petitioner in the list published for Sports category candidates under Annexure-4, Petitioner made an objection on 09.10.2017 under Annexure-7 before Opp. Party No. 3.

¶21

4.1. It is contended that on the face of such objection filed on 09.10.2017 as no action was taken, the present writ petition was filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. It is also contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter, directed to keep reserve one post vacant and the said interim order is continuing.

¶22

4.2. It is contended that since name of the Petitioner was wrongly reflected in the list published for Sports category candidates, Petitioner has filed the objection under Annexure-7 inter alia indicating therein that his claim has been wrongly rejected, appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No. 3 to take a final decision on the claim of the Petitioner taking into account the stand taken in the objection so filed under Annexure-7.

¶23

Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶24

Page 2 of 3.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of engagement as Part Time Instructor taking into account the stand taken in the objection filed on 09.10.2017 under Annexure-7. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Till a decision is taken as directed, interim order passed earlier shall continue.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶28

Sneha

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Dec-2024 19:11:37

¶31

Page 3 of 3.

Dipak Kumar Khatua v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Kumar Khatua v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Biswal Vs State of Orissa

Sabitarani Chand Vs State of Odisha

Jasobant Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Pradeep Kumar Khatua Vs State of Orissa

Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Ku.Mallick Vs State and Ors.