Dismissed

Achyuta Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Aug 2024WP(C)/25323/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Orissa High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's appointment due to the abolition of the Gardener post. Citing the Supreme Court, the Court held that mere training does not confer a right to employment for public posts, and it cannot direct appointment contrary to valid government policy.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed; no direction for appointment or age relaxation issued.

Achyuta Patra Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶3

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950

¶4

¶5

Achyuta Patra Aged about 38 years Son of Purusottam Patra At: Chouka, P.O.: Mursundhi P.S.: Subalaya District:Sonepur. … Petitioner.

¶6

-VERSUS-

¶7

1. State of Odisha Represented through Principal Secretary to Government in Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment Department At: Secretariat Building Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

¶8

2. Director of Horticulture, Odisha Bhubaneswar At: Heads of the Department Building At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha … Opposite Parties.

¶9

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶10

For the Petitioner : M/s. Kunal Kumar Swain, Premananda Mohanty,

¶11

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶12

Page 1 of 23

¶13

U. Chhotray, Kaushik Swain, Advocates

¶14

For the Opposite parties : Mrs. Saswata Pattnaik, Additional Government Advocate

¶15

P R E S E N T:

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶17

Date of Hearing : 16.08.2024 :: Date of Order

¶18

: 23.08.2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Challenging the Office Order No.7127, dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Director of Horticulture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.2 under Annexure-8, wherein the representation of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Gardener under the Directorate of Horticulture in pursuance of direction contained in the Order dated 29.03.2022 passed in WPC (OAC) No.1268 of 2014 has been rejected on the ground that the said post has already been abolished, the petitioner has come up before this Court craving to for exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):

¶21

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;

¶22

And

¶23

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶24

Page 2 of 23

¶25

(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued quashing the Order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Director of Horticulture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-8 and necessary direction may be made to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him against the post of Gardener/Horticulture Extension Worker by giving him preference and also by taking into consideration his training qualification by relaxing his upper age limit at par with 12 Trainee Candidates, who were given appointment against the post of Gardeners as per the information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act on 24.01.2012 under Annexure-3 series, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;

¶26

(B) And any other order/orders or direction/directions may be issued to as to give complete relief to the petitioner;

¶27

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

¶28

Facts:

¶29

2. The petitioner, namely, Achyuta Patra, was issued with Certificate bearing No.151, dated 09.01.2008 having successfully completed the Self Employment Gardeners’ Training Course under National Horticulture Mission Programme 2007-08 conducted in the School of Horticulture, Odisha, Khordha from 28.06.2007 to 27.12.2008.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶31

Page 3 of 23

¶32

2.1. Specifying last date for applying for the post of Gardener as 15.04.2011, an advertisement was published by the Director of Horticulture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party No.2 whereby personnel having Class-VII pass qualification were required for filling up of 12 numbers of posts on Contractual basis with a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.4440/-, pursuant to which twelve personnel were selected with Gardener and Supervisory Training and given appointment on contractual basis.

¶33

2.2. Though there were large numbers vacancies in the posts of Gardeners, the Department only advertised twelve numbers of posts, which prompted the petitioner to submit a representation to the Director of Horticulture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, which yielded no result. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by way of filing Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, giving rise to O.A. No.1270 (C) of 2012, which came to be disposed of vide Order dated 11.05.2012 with the following direction:

¶34

“***

¶35

The applicant had undergone training in Horticulture, conducted in the School of Horticulture, Orissa, Khurda from 2^nd July, 2007 to 1^st October, 2007 and has successfully completed the Self Employment Entrepreneurs Training Course under National

¶36

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶37

Page 4 of 23

¶38

Horticulture Mission Programme 2007-08 as per Annexure-1. The Director of Horticulture invited applications under Annexure-2 to fill up 12 posts of Gardeners on contractual basis. It was stipulated that personnel who have undergone Gardeners’ training under the Director of Horticulture will be given preference at the time of selection. Accordingly, the applicant along with others applied for the post of Gardeners on contractual basis. The Director of Horticulture took up the process of selection and appointed 12 candidates, who had undergone training in Horticulture.

¶39

Unfortunately the applicant is not one of them. It is stated that some more posts of Gardeners are still lying vacant under the disposal of respondent No.2. The applicant has made a representation to the Director of Horticulture (respondent No.2) under Annexure-4 for being considered to be appointed against any one of the remaining posts of Gardeners on contractual basis. However, no action on his representation has been taken as yet. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would be satisfied if respondent No.2 is directed to consider and dispose of his representation at an early date.

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to such course of action.

¶41

In the result, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant under Annexure-4 keeping in view the averments made in the O.A. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.”

¶42

2.3. No steps was taken by the authority pursuant to aforesaid Order dated 11.05.2012 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal; nevertheless, an advertisement

¶43

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶44

Page 5 of 23

¶45

dated 25-31^st January, 2014 was published in the local daily “ Nijukti Khabar ” for the posts of Horticulture Extension Worker (HEW) [which is claimed to be converted from Gardener] on contractual basis in the Office of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Kandhamal, Phulbani. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the Director, Horticulture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar on 21.01.2014 to comply with the Order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.1270 (C) of 2012.

¶46

2.4. Since said representation came out to be in vain, the petitioner again approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack invoking Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by way of filing Original Application being O.A. No.1268 (C) of 2014, which after abolition of the said Tribunal by virtue of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) Notification F. No. A-11014/10/2015-AT [G.S.R.552(E)], dated 2^nd August, 2019), got transferred to this Court, and renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.1268 of 2014. This Court disposed of the said case by Order dated 29.03.2022 with the following observations:

¶47

“***

¶48

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶49

Page 6 of 23

¶50

4. However, taking into account the claim raised in the present Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to make a fresh representation before Opposite Party No.2 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of his claim, if any, within a period of three weeks hence.

¶51

5. It is observed that if such a representation is filed within the aforesaid period, Opposite Party no.2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The order so passed by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the petitioner.

¶52

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.”

¶53

2.5. In compliance of the aforesaid Order dated 29.03.2022 of this Court, the petitioner made a fresh representation to the opposite party No.2 on 16.04.2022, which has been rejected vide Office Order No.7127— 3P(H6)58/2016, dated 11.07.2022 on the ground that the post of Gardener has already been abolished. Said Order reads as under:

¶54

“***

¶55

Whereas, during the year 2010-11, it was decided by the Government to fill up 12 number of Gardener on contractual basis through open advertisement. The advertisement was floated in the two local dailies. Accordingly, 131 number of candidates were appeared for the test/examination. Then a final merit list was published and 12 candidates were selected for the post of

¶56

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶57

Page 7 of 23

¶58

Gardener on Contractual basis as per the merit list. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner could not succeed in the test/examination.

¶59

Whereas, as per the policy decision of the Govt. of Odisha on 09.05.2012 there will be no further recruitment in the cadre of Gardener and the post would stand abolished when Gardener retires or gets promoted. Since then no recruitment has been done in the post of Gardener till today.

¶60

Whereas, the petitioner has undertaken the Self Employment Entrepreneurs Training course under National Horticulture Mission Programme during the year 2007.

¶61

Whereas, the self-employment Gardeners Training was imparted in the School of Horticulture, Khurdha to encourage the unemployed youth of the State to earn their livelihood by way of self-employment. There was no condition in the self-employment Gardeners Training for appointment in the Govt. service after completion of training.

¶62

Whereas, the recruitment to the post of Horticulture Extension Worker is now conducted by the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission, Odisha by publishing open advertisement.”

¶63

Hearing:

¶64

3. Heard Sri Premananda Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties. Pleadings being completed, on consent of counsel for both sides, this matter taken up

¶65

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶66

Page 8 of 23

¶67

for final hearing. Having heard, the matter was kept reserved for preparation and delivery of Order.

¶68

Submissions:

¶69

4. Sri Premananda Mohanty, learned Advocate has reiterated the facts stated in the writ petition and submitted that since the petitioner has got training in Horticulture, and has requisite qualification, in terms of policy of the Government preference should have been given to the petitioner by allowing him to work as Gardener (Horticulture Extension Worker).

¶70

5. Smt. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties referring to the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2, submitted that the advertisement was issued for filling up of the post of Horticulture Extension Worker on contractual basis, but not for the post of Gardener. The petitioner is misconceived in stating that the post of Gardener has been converted to the post of Horticulture Extension Worker.

¶71

5.1. She also submitted that the post of Horticulture Extension Worker (HEW) was converted and redesignated after merging the two posts, i.e., Grafter and Field Technician. The Government in Agriculture Department vide Resolution No.21090/Ag., Dated 10.10.2012 framed rules for appointment of Group-C

¶72

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶73

Page 9 of 23

¶74

and Group-D posts of Odisha Horticulture Service, wherein 50% posts of HEW, which requires qualification of +2 Science pass, would be filled up by way of direct recruitment through open advertisement. Therefore, the Odisha Subordinate Staff Selection Commission is entrusted with publishing advertisement to fill up the post of Horticulture Extension Worker by direct recruitment through open advertisement.

¶75

5.2. She further submitted that certain applicants having approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1510 of 2012 in connection with appointment of Gardener under the Directorate of Horticulture got order in their favour vide Order dated 27.06.2014. Challenging the said Order the State of Odisha filed W.P.(C) No.11307 of 2016 before this Court, which got dismissed on 22.12.2017. Said Order of this Court, being carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.6227-6228 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.1363-1364 of 2019), vide Judgment dated 09.08.2019 [ Director of Horticulture, Odisha Vrs. Pravat Kumar Dash, (2019) 11 SCR 708 ] allowed the said appeal and held that the Order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal as affirmed by this Court directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners is beyond jurisdiction.

¶76

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶77

Page 10 of 23

¶78

5.3. Smt. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in the instant writ petition, the petitioners having claimed identical relief as was under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above reported Judgment, no writ of mandamus be issued to the opposite parties. It is, therefore, urged by Smt. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate that in view of the above position as set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, there remains nothing for adjudication in the present case, and insisted to dismiss the case.

¶79

Discussion & Conclusion:

¶80

6. The petitioner has made approach to this Court on the expectation that having got training in Horticulture in the School of Horticulture, Odisha on the basis of preference he should have been given appointment to the post of Gardener. It is the claim of the petitioner that even if the post is stated to be abolished, he should have been given opportunity to be Horticulture Extension Worker. Such a plea was turned down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Horticulture, Odisha Vrs. Pravat Kumar Dash, (2019) 11 SCR 708, as cited by Smt. Saswata Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶81

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶82

Page 11 of 23

¶83

6.1. It may be worthwhile to quote relevant portion of the said Judgment to draw similitude with the present context:

¶84

“2. The challenge in the present appeals is to a judgment passed by Orissa High Court on December 22, 2017 maintaining the order dated June 27, 2014 passed by Odisha Administrative Tribunal in Original Application (OA) No. 1510 of 2012 and other petitions. The Tribunal decided nine OAs by a common order whereby the orders passed by the Government not to fill up the posts of Gardener and to create the equal number of posts of Horticulture Extension Workers were set aside. The State was directed to consider the applicants for appointment against the existing vacant posts of Gardener.

¶85

¶86

17. The respondents were subjected to training in pursuance of circular dated July 4, 1998. The training was proposed in the circular dated April 16, 1998. It clearly contemplates that there is no guarantee in the matter of employment after successful completion of training by the trainees. At that time, training was contemplated only in the School of Horticulture, Khurda during the year 19981999. Subsequently, the training was proposed to be held in ten selected departmental farms but there is no assurance in the said communication dated July 4, 1998 that candidates would be appointed. The appointment to the post of Gardener is required to be made in terms of the Recruitment Rules if any, applicable thereto or in terms of instructions issued under executive

¶87

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶88

Page 12 of 23

¶89

power of the State but the appointments cannot be made merely for the reason that a candidate has undergone training. Out of 1359 candidates who applied in pursuance of circular dated July 4, 1998, 362 candidates were selected for training but the manner of their selection has not come on record.

¶90

18. We find the selection of the candidates for training was not by way of transparent procedure nor there was any commitment to appoint candidates who have completed training as Gardeners, therefore, even if a candidate has completed training, he cannot seek right of employment unless such posts are advertised and filled up by giving opportunity to all similarly situated candidates. The directions of the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, that the candidates are intended to be employed are wholly unjustified as there cannot be any direction for appointment only for the reason that the candidates have undergone training. It is not necessary for this Court to examine whether the post of Gardener has been upgraded to the post of Horticulture Extension Worker or that it is the same post having a different nomenclature. The fact remains that all public posts are required to be filled up by giving an opportunity to all the candidates to apply and to compete for the post.

¶91

19. The services of six persons who were appointed were ordered to be terminated on December 10, 1999 but even if their termination was set aside on April 24, 2001, it will not confer any right on the basis of equity in favour of the other candidates.

¶92

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶93

Page 13 of 23

¶94

There cannot be any parity in the illegality. Reference will be made to Chandigarh Administration Vrs. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745 and Kulwinder Pal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532

¶95

20. In view of the above, we find that the order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners is beyond their jurisdiction vested in the High Court as there cannot be any direction for making appointment to the public post in such a manner. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the OAs filed by the respondents are dismissed.”

¶96

6.2. As is well established from the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there cannot be any direction for appointment only for the reason that the candidates have undergone training and it is beyond pale of jurisdiction of this Court for making appointment to the public post.

¶97

7. Significant to note that in the counter affidavit it has been clearly stated that,

¶98

“It is worth mentioning that later as per the policy decision of the Government of Odisha on 09.05.2012 there will be no further recruitment in the cadre of Gardener and the post would stand abolished when Gardener retires or get promoted.”

¶99

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶100

Page 14 of 23

¶101

7.1. Perusal of Annexure-6, i.e., Minutes of the Meeting held on 09.05.2012 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Odisha regarding filling up of the posts of Gardeners, reveals the following decision:

¶102

“2. At the outset, Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department informed that there are a large number of court cases where the Hon’ble O.A.T. and Hon’ble High Court have passed orders for appointment of Gardeners. He also pointed out the decision taken in a meeting held on 20.04.2011 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Odisha wherein it was decide that 1292 posts of Village Horticulture Workers (Subsequently changed as Horticulture Extension Worker) will be created in lieu of 1525 posts of other categories (327 Field Technician + 467 Grafters + 731 Gardeners). It was also decided in the said meeting that in future no recruitment will be made in the cadre of Gardener but as and when a Gardener would retire or get promoted, the post will be abolished and equal number of V.H.W. (now H.E.W.) will be recruited.

¶103

3. The Finance Department while concurring in the Memorandum for the Cabinet on the strengthening and restructuring of Horticulture Directorate, have agreed for creating of 794 posts of V.H.W in lieu of 794 posts of other categories (327 Filed Technician. + 467 Graffers). 731 posts of Gardener were not accounted for in the process of restructuring by Finance Department as the post of Gardener is in the rank of Group-D which, in their considered view, cannot be clubbed with Group-C for creation of other posts. Accordingly, the F.D. agreed for 794 posts of V.H.W. (Group-C) as against the 1292 posts

¶104

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶105

Page 15 of 23

¶106

recommended in the meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary.

¶107

4. The process of restructuring of the Horticulture Directorate has taken about 4 years time and in the meanwhile as many as 259 posts of Gardener have fallen vacant. The man in position as on 01.05.2012 were 473 only against the sanctioned strength of 731. Those vacant posts need to be filled up immediately for smooth execution of the field works. Besides this, there are a number of judgments of Hon’ble OAT regardirig appointment against the vacant posts. These judgments have also been upheld in the Hon’ble High Court and a reference has been made by Agriculture Department to Law Department to advise on the next course of action. It has been advised to implement the orders of Hon’ble High Court. But when the concurrence of F.D. was sought to fill up the vacant posts of Gardeners, the F.D. has advised the Department of Agriculture to follow the decision taken in the meeting under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary on 20.04.2011 i.e. not to recruit Gardeners in future. Therefore, Agriculture Department is neither being allowed to recruit Gardeners nor posts are being created in the rank of H.E.W. in lieu of such vacant posts of Gardeners.

¶108

5. After considering of all these facts and the detailed job chart of the Gardeners and their contribution to implement various schemes under the Directorate of Horticulture the following decision was taken:

¶109

(a) Against 258 vacant posts of Gardeners, equal number of posts HEW should be created as per the

¶110

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶111

Page 16 of 23

¶112

decision taken in the meeting held on 20.04.2012. This would be in addition to the 794 posts concurred in by F.D in the restructuring proposal.

¶113

(b) While recruiting HEWs, 50% of the posts shall be filled up through promotion out of the existing Gardeners (with qualification of Class-VII and above) till the Gardeners are available in the pay rolls.

¶114

(c) In future no recruitment will be made in the Cadre of Gardener and when Gardeners would retire or get promoted, the posts will be abolished.

¶115

(d) The job chart of the HEW should incorporate the work presently being

¶116

(e) Review petition, should be filed by the Department. in. Honble High Court explaining the facts about the restructuring of the Directorate.

¶117

(f) 230 posts of Attendant shall continue to exist as Horticulture Attendant.

¶118

(g) Directorate of Horticulture chould take steps to set up quality nurseries in all the Blocks in private sector during 12^th Five Year Plan.

¶119

The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair.

¶120

Sd/

¶121

Chief Secretary, Odisha Bhubaneswar.”

¶122

7.2. It seems the petitioner under misconceived notion approached this Court in the instant writ petition by stating that “the petitioner may be given preference for

¶123

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶124

Page 17 of 23

¶125

the post of Horticulture Extension Worker which has been converted from the post of Gardener and age relaxation may also be made in respect of the petitioner as there is no recruitment for so many years. Nonetheless, the above decision taken in the Meeting held on 09.05.2012 clearly reveals that there is restriction “not to recruit Gardeners in future” and it is not the post of “Gardener” which is converted to “Horticulture Extension Worker”, but it is “Village Horticulture Worker” which is changed as “Horticulture Extension Worker”.

¶126

7.3. While a decision inter alia was taken in the said Meeting held in the year 2012 to approach the Court in further proceeding, it appears the pertinent question fell for adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide Judgment dated 09.08.2019, said Hon’ble Court in the case of The Director of Horticulture, Odisha Vrs. Pravat Kumar Dash and Others, (2019) 11 SCR 708, negated the perception of this Court as also the Odisha Administrative Tribunal and held that mere availing the benefit of getting trained would not entail such trained Gardener to seek right of employment.

¶127

7.4. This Court has limited scope to interfere with policy decisions of the State Government by entertaining writ petition.

¶128

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶129

Page 18 of 23

¶130

7.5. The limited scope of the Court’s powers of interference in matters of this nature was noted in State of NCT of Delhi Vrs. Sanjeev @ Bitto, AIR 2005 SC 2080 , wherein it has been observed as under:

¶131

“*** Thus, the Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.”

¶132

7.6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Director, Elementary Education Vrs. Dibakar Pradhan, Civil Appeal No.2104 of 2004 &c., disposed of on vide Order dated 16.02.2010, held as follows:

¶133

“*** We have perused the said Order. In our opinion the direction in the aforesaid appeal was given solely on humanitarian grounds and not on any principle of law and hence it is not a precedent. Apart from this, there is no statute which directs the State Government to take over all the Primary Schools/Hindi Primary Schools situated in different collieries of the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.

¶134

In our view, the Courts are meant only to enforce the law, if it exists, but they cannot create a law and start enforcing it. To make a law is the domain of the Legislature and not of the Courts. It is in the discretion of the State Government to take over a School or not, and it cannot be compelled to do so. After all, taking over a School has financial and other implications.”

¶135

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶136

Page 19 of 23

¶137

7.7. In Devesh Sharma Vrs. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 633 = 2023 INSC 704, it has been succinctly laid down as follows:

¶138

“We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that policy decisions of the Government should normally not be interfered with, by a constitutional Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. At the same time if the policy decision itself is contrary to the law and is arbitrary and irrational, powers of judicial review must be exercised.

¶139

A policy decision which is totally arbitrary; contrary to the law, or a decision which has been taken without proper application of mind, or in total disregard of relevant factors is liable to be interfered with, as that also is the mandate of law and the Constitution. This aspect has been reiterated by this Court time and again.

¶140

Judicial review becomes necessary where there is an illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions Vrs. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 All ER 935 : 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL) (commonly known as CCSU case). The above decision has been referred by this Court in State of NCT of Delhi Vrs. Sanjeev, (2005) 5 SCC 181. This view was reiterated again by this Court in State of M.P. & Ors. Vrs. Mala Banerjee, (2015) 7 SCC 698:

¶141

‘6. We also find ourselves unable to agree with the appellants’ submission that this is a policy matter and, therefore, should not be interfered with by the courts. In Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289, this Court has already considered the scope of judicial review and has enumerated that where a policy is contrary to

¶142

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶143

Page 20 of 23

¶144

law or is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is arbitrary or irrational, the courts must perform their constitutional duties by striking it down. ***’

¶145

In Brij Mohan Lal Vrs. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502 this Court reiterated on this aspect and made out a distinction as to where an interference to a decision is required, and whereas it is not:

¶146

‘100.Certain tests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can be summed up as:

¶147

(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.

¶148

(II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention.

¶149

(III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, etc.

¶150

(IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions.

¶151

(V) It is de hors the provisions of the Act or legislations.

¶152

(VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation.

¶153

101. Cases of this nature can be classified into two main classes: one class being the matters relating to general policy decisions of the State and the second

¶154

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶155

Page 21 of 23

¶156

relating to fiscal policies of the State. In the former class of cases, the courts have expanded the scope of judicial review when the actions are arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to the law of the land; while in the latter class of cases, the scope of such judicial review is far narrower. Nevertheless, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, unfair actions or policies contrary to the letter, intent and philosophy of law and policies expanding beyond the permissible limits of delegated power will be instances where the courts will step in to interfere with Government policy.’*** ”

¶157

7.8. Such being the conspectus of exercise of power of judicial review vis-à-vis policy decision of the Government of Odisha, for the reasons stated supra with the discussions, this Court is, therefore, of the considered view that no direction can possibly be made to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner to appoint him against the post of Gardener, particularly when having taken the policy decision, the Government has abolished said post.

¶158

7.9. It is also apt to note that merely because the petitioner has availed the opportunity to complete training, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the opposite parties to relax upper age of the petitioner “at par with twelve trainee candidates who got appointment against the post of Gardeners”, in view of Director of Horticulture, Odisha Vrs. Pravat Kumar Dash, (2019) 11 SCR 708, that all public posts are required to be filled up by giving an

¶159

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶160

Page 22 of 23

¶161

opportunity to all the candidates to apply and to compete for the post. Issuing direction to the State to appoint the petitioner as Gardener would be to exercise power beyond jurisdiction vested in this Court, as there cannot be any direction for making appointment to the public post in such a manner.

¶162

8. In view of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director of Horticulture, Odisha Vrs. Pravat Kumar Dash, (2019) 11 SCR 708, under the above premises as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶163

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE

¶164

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 23^th August, 2024//Aswini/Laxmikant

¶165

Signature Not Verified

¶166

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 23-Aug-2024 14:28:19

¶167

W.P.(C) No.25323 of 2022

¶168

Page 23 of 23

Achyuta Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achyuta Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratik Srichandan Vs State of Odisha

Santanu Kumar Bebarta Vs Kishore Kumar Samantaray

Gobind Agarwalla Vs State of Odisha

Kirtan Behera Vs Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa

Narendra Sahoo Vs Durga Charan Sahoo

Manas Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha