Dismissed

Dr. Mamata Manjari Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Dec 2024WP(C)/3374/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an appointment and select list. It held the petition not maintainable because selectees and appointees under the challenged orders were not impleaded as parties, relying on an Apex Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable due to defective procedure of not impleading selectees/appointees.

Dr. Mamata Manjari Panda Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.3374 of 2022

¶3

Dr. Mamta Manjari Panda …. Petitioner

¶4

Ms. S. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr.P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. for O.P.2

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶10

09.12.2024

¶11

Order No.

¶12

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

¶13

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶14

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶15

“In view of the above facts and circumstances the petitioner therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and call for the records and after hearing all the parties issue a writ of mandamus with a direction to the opposite parties for quashing the impugned select list and appointment order vide annexure-8 on the basis of the select list vide annexure-7 and direct to prepare a fresh select list following the mandates of law and pass any other orders/Direction as deem fit be passed”.

¶16

4 . It is the case of the Petitioner that without following the reservation principle since the select list under

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Annexure-7 was prepared followed by the order of appointment issued under Annexure-8, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶19

5 . Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for Opposite Party No.2 raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition inter alia contending that since none of the selectee and / or appointee in terms of Annexures-7 & 8 have been implead as a party to the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶20

6 . In support of the same, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2014 (16) SCC-187 . Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13 of the said decision has held as follows:-

¶21

“ 13. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are disposed to think that in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners”.

¶22

6.1. It is contended that since none of the selectee and/or appointee have been impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition, the prayer made to quash the select list and order of appointment issued under Annexures-7 & 8 is not maintainable.

¶23

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

finds that Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the select list issued by the Commission under Annexure-7 and consequential order of appointment issued by the Government under Annexure-8. Since none of the selectee and / or appointee has been impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition, placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra), it is the considered view of this Court that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶27

7.1 . Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition in its present form. It will be open for the Petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition by impleading the selectees / appointees, if the Petitioner so desires at present.

¶28

8 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶29

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶30

Subrat

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 13-Dec-2024 11:28:13

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Dr. Mamata Manjari Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mamata Manjari Panda 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

Sachidananda Panigrahi Vs Ratna Giri

Sanjay Ku.Singhal Vs Hemalata Naik

Icici Lombard motor Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jayakrushna Sahoo

State Vs Dillip

Muralidhar Mahar Vs State

Anil Kumar Rana Vs State of Odisha