Disposed

Narottam Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Ors.

Orissa HC17 Mar 2025WP(C)/18093/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An NMR clerk of Cuttack Municipal Corporation recommended by the Selection Board for absorption as Junior Assistant was instead absorbed as work-charged Attendant based on an unproved complaint by a stranger. The High Court quashed both absorption orders and directed fresh consideration per the Selection Board recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 21.11.2015 and 04.12.2015 quashed; opposite parties directed to consider petitioner's case per the Selection Board's 20.08.2014 recommendation within three months.

Narottam Mohanty Vs State of Odisha and Ors. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

Narottam Mohanty Aged about 47 years Son of Sri Daitary Mohanty At: Endulapur, P.O.: Jayanagar P.S.: Rajkanika District: Kendrapara. … Petitioner

¶6

-VERSUS-

¶7

1. State of Odisha Represented through Commissioner- cum -Secretary Housing & Urban Development Department At: Secretariat Building P.O.: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.

¶8

2. The Secretary Government of Odisha Finance Department Secretariat Building At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 3. The Director Municipal Administration and

¶9

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶10

Page 1 of 28

¶11

Ex-Officio , Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha Housing and Urban Development Department Odisha, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.

¶12

4. The Cuttack Municipal Corporation Represented through Commissioner At/P.O.: Choudhury Bazar District: Cuttack – 753 009. … Opposite parties

¶13

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶14

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Santanu Kumar Sarangi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sudeep Kumar Sarangi, Advocate
For the Opposite party Nos.1 to 3	: Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, Additional Government Advocate
For the Opposite party No.4	: Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Sahu, Advocate

¶15

P R E S E N T:

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶17

Date of Hearing : 10.03.2025 :: Date of Order

¶18

: 17.03.2025

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶21

Page 2 of 28

¶22

Challenging the Order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department, opposite party No.1 vide Annexure-2 and Order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, opposite party No.4 vide Annexure-3, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer(s):

¶23

“In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule NISI in the nature of Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ/Writs calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Order dated 21.11.2015 of the Government, Housing & Urban Development Department (in respect of the petitioner) and the order dated 04.12.2015 of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation absorbing the petitioner as Attendant in the work charged establishment in place of Junior Assistant shall not be quashed;

¶24

And as to why the Opposite Parties shall not be commanded to absorb the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant under CMC as per the decision of the Selection Board;

¶25

And, if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show false/insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute;

¶26

And, pass such other Order/Orders, as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

¶27

And allow this Writ Petition with cost;

¶28

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶29

Page 3 of 28

¶30

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

¶31

2. Facts, as adumbrated by the writ petitioner, reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Cuttack Municipal Corporation on NMR basis and joined on 08.01.1993 in Urdu Library at Cuttack. Since the case of the petitioner was not considered for regularisation in service, even after working for 24 years, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.20298 of 2013 for absorption against existing regular vacancy.

¶32

2.1. An affidavit dated 28.01.2015 was filed by the opposite parties in the said writ petition stating that the Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department vide Order No.15272 dated 31.07.2014 directed the Local Fund Service Section, Housing and Urban Development Department to place the names of the petitioners therein along with others before the Selection Board constituted under Rule 7 of the Orissa Local Funds Service Rules, 1975 (in short “OLFS Rules, 1975”) for due ratification for regularization of their services as “Junior Assistant” under Local Fund Service Cadre (in short “LFS Cadre”) in the existing vacancies of different Urban Local Bodies.

¶33

2.2. This Court upon hearing the parties, on 08.05.2015 disposed of the said writ petition by passing following order:

¶34

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶35

Page 4 of 28

¶36

“ Heard Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party no.4.

¶37

The petitioner has filed this application seeking for a direction to absorb them permanently in the posts in which they are discharging their duties since long as per the decision taken by the Government vide order dated 17.10.2012 under Annexure-3 and the recommendation made under Annexure-4 by opposite party No.4 or in alternative they shall be brought over to the work-charged establishment.

¶38

Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are discharging their duties under opposite party No.4 prior to 1993 the cut-off date fixed by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation but till date they have not been regularly absorbed. Subsequently by way of an affidavit filed on 28.01.2015 it is stated that the Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department vide order No.15272 dated 31.07.2014 directed the Local Fund Service Section Housing and Urban Development Department to place the names of the petitioners along with others before the Selection Board for due ratification for regularization of their services as Junior Assistant under LFS Cadre in the existing vacancies of different Urban Local Bodies. He has incorporated a letter dated 31.07.2014 which has been communicated by the Government to L.F.S. Section Housing and Urban Development Department for absorption of DLR/NMR workers against the existing Junior Assistant (LFS Cadre) vacancy in different Urban Local Bodes. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid letter let the State Government take a decision as

¶39

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶40

Page 5 of 28

¶41

expeditiously as possible so that the petitioners services can be regularized.***

¶42

Considering the contentions raised by the parties and after going through the records it appears from the affidavit filed by the petitioners that the Government of Odisha Housing and Urban Development Department is seisin over the matter for taking a decision to regularize the services of 57 employees enlisted in Annexure-6 wherein the names of the petitioners have been included. Let the State authorities take a decision within four months from the date of communication of this order.”

¶43

2.3. The Selection Board in its meeting held on 20.08.2014 ratified 56 NMR (Clerks) in different Local Bodies for absorption as Junior Assistants. The name of the petitioner did find place. The Government in Housing and Urban Development Department on the recommendation of the Selection Board, absorbed 47 numbers of DLR/NMR of urban local bodies in regular post of Junior Assistants under the LFS Cadre. Though the name of the petitioner was recommended for absorption by the Selection Board, his case was not given due consideration.

¶44

2.4. On 21.11.2015 the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department directed absorption of 8 DLR/NMR employees working in Cuttack Municipal Corporation in work-charged establishment in the post of “Attendant” where the name of the petitioner is found place at Serial No.6. Pursuant to the said order of the

¶45

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶46

Page 6 of 28

¶47

Government, the Cuttack Municipal Corporation by Office Order vide Memo No.12637 dated 04.12.2015 placed the petitioner under the work-charged establishment to work as “Attendant” instead of “Junior Assistant”.

¶48

2.5. Being aggrieved by such Order dated 21.11.2015 of the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department and consequential Order dated 04.12.2015 of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation absorbing the petitioner as “Attendant” in the work-charged establishment instead of “Junior Assistant”, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

¶49

3. On notice being issued, the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit. Pleadings being completed and exchanged amongst the counsel for respective parties, on consent of counsel for the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶50

3.1. Accordingly, heard Sri Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudeep Kumar Sarangi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Sri Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjiv Kumar Sahu, learned Advocate appearing for

¶51

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶52

Page 7 of 28

¶53

opposite party No.4 and the matter stood reserved for preparation and pronouncement of Judgment.

¶54

4. It is submitted by Sri Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the Selection Board was constituted under Rule 7 of the OLFS Rules, 1975 for consideration/ratification of absorption of DLR/NMR employees who were engaged prior to 12.04.1993 in the vacant posts of “Junior Assistant”, LFS Cadre in different urban local bodies.

¶55

4.1. In the said meeting, it was decided as follows:

¶56

“ The Selection Board constituted under Rule 7 of OLFS Rules, 1975 met today i.e. on 20.08.2014 at 4.30 P.M. for consideration of absorption of DLR/NMR those who were engaged prior to 12.04.1993 in the vacant post of Junior Assistant LFS cadre.

¶57

***

¶58

Hence, as per the observation of Government, it has been decided to absorb 57 DLR/NMR in the existing vacant post of Junior Assistant (LFS Cadre) following the provision under Rule 7 of OLFS Rules, 1975.

¶59

***

¶60

The Board after threadbare deliberation have recommended for absorption of the following 56 DLR employees of different ULBs of the State in the post of Junior Assistant under LFS Cadre from the date of issue of the Notification and their posting in the concerned ULBs against in the existing vacancy of Junior Assistant. The

¶61

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶62

Page 8 of 28

¶63

extra financial burden in this account shall be borne by the concerned ULBs from their own source.”

¶64

4.2. It is submitted that in the list of names of DLR employees, it had 56 names. In respect of Cuttack Municipal Corporation, petitioner’s name found place at Sl.No.48. Though the petitioner has been working as Clerk in Urdu Library since 08.01.1993, he should have been considered for the post of “Junior Assistant” instead of “Attendant” in work-charged establishment.

¶65

5. Sri Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that since the petitioner failed to submit necessary documents, his case was not considered for “Junior Assistant”, but he was allowed to work as Attendant in work-charged establishment.

¶66

6. Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Cuttack Municipal Corporation has acted in consonance with the decision of the Housing and Urban Development Department and issued Order dated 21.11.2015 (Annexure-2).

¶67

7. On perusal of record it comes to fore that, the Director, Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio , Additional Secretary to Government in Housing and Urban Development Department vide Office Order No.20632HUD-LFS-HR-10/2014/HUD dated 14.08.2015, directed

¶68

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶69

Page 9 of 28

¶70

absorption of 47 numbers of DLRs/NMRs of different urban local bodies in regular post of “Junior Assistant” under LFS Cadre. However, the name of the petitioner did not find place. Nonetheless, by Order No.30173HUD-LFS-HR-10/2014/HUD, dated 21.11.2015 the Housing and Urban Development Department reflects that the petitioner is directed to be absorbed in the post of “Attendant” in the work-charged establishment.

¶71

7.1. Scrutiny of Office Order vide Memo No.12637, dated 04.12.2015 reveals the following facts:

¶72

“ In pursuance of Government in Housing & Urban Development Department Order No.30173/HUD dated 21.11.2015, Sri Narottam Mohanty who is working as DLR/NMR basis and engaged prior to 12.04.1993 is hereby brought over to the work charged establishment as Attendant in the scale of pay Rs.4,750/- to Rs.14,680/- with Grade Pay Rs.1,500/- per month with effect from 28.11.2015 as per submission of his joining report.

¶73

The admissibility of D.A. will be applicable as allowed to other work charged employees of CMS from time to time.

¶74

He is directed to submit the documents as indicated below within 7 (seven) days from issue of the order failing which his acceptance of joining in the work-charged establishment shall be cancelled.

¶75

Documents to be submitted

¶76

1. Original Certificate in proof of age.

¶77

2. Two recent passport size photograph.

¶78

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶79

Page 10 of 28

¶80

3. Fitness Certificate.

¶81

4. Marriage declaration certificate.

¶82

5. Character Certificate.”

¶83

By order of Mayor Sd/Deputy Commissioner

¶84

Memo No.12637/Date 4/12/15

¶85

Copy to person concerned / Addl. Commissioner-I/ Addl. Commissioner-II/ Deputy Commissioner-II/ Secretary / City Engineer / City Health Officer / Recovery Officer / Deputy Secretary/ Finance Officer / Chief Audit Officer / Asst. Law Officer / Accountant / Auditor / H.A. (Estt.) for information and necessary action.

¶86

Copy to Steno to Mayor / Steno to Commissioner for kind information of Mayor and Commissioner.

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

Deputy Commissioner”

¶89

7.2. Scanning through the documents enclosed to the writ petition, it is revealed that the Selection Board was held on 20.08.2014 for consideration of absorption of DLR/NMR employees (those who were engaged prior to 12.04.1993) in the vacant post of “Junior Assistant”, LFS Cadre in different Urban Local Bodies. The relevant portion of the Minutes of the said Selection Board meeting is re-produced for better comprehension:

¶90

“***

¶91

The Selection Board constituted under Rule 7 of the OLFS Rules, 1975 met today i.e. on 20.08.2014 at 4.30 P.M. for consideration of absorption of DLR/NMR those who

¶92

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶93

Page 11 of 28

¶94

were engaged prior to 12.04.1993 in the vacant post of Junior Assistant LFS cadre.

¶95

As a matter of policy it has been decided to bring the DLR/NMR to the fold of Work Charged establishment those who were engaged prior to 12.04.1993.

¶96

***

¶97

It is seen that the aforesaid employees are assigned with clerical nature of work and performing their job for more than 20 years with utmost sincerity to their Authority. Further they have possessed the requisite qualification for the said post.

¶98

***

¶99

The Board after threadbare deliberation have recommended for absorption of the following 56 DLR employees of different ULBs of the State in the post of Junior Assistant under LFS cadre from the date of issue of the Notification and their posting in the concerned ULBs against in the existing vacancy of Junior Assistant. The extra financial burden in this account shall be borne by the concerned ULBs from their own source.”

¶100

7.3. The name of the petitioner finds place at Sl.No.48 in the List of 56 NMR/DLR employees, whose names were recommended for absorption for the post of “Junior Assistant”.

¶101

7.4. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to have a reference to Report of the Committee formed to scrutinize the claims of NMR workers of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation to

¶102

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶103

Page 12 of 28

¶104

identify them in high skilled / skilled / semi-skilled wages categories, as heavily relied upon by Sri Santanu Kumar Sarangi, learned senior counsel during the course of his argument. The relevant portion of the said Report depicts as follows:

¶105

“ Members Present

¶106

1) The Deputy Commissioner C.M.C. - Chairman 2) Slum Improvement Officer, C.M.C. - Member 3) Executive Engineer, C.M.C. - Member 4) Establishment Officer, C.M.C. - Member

¶107

The Deputy Commissioner presided over the meeting.

¶108

The Committee went through the draft recommendations of the previous Committee, formed for the self-same purpose as per orders of the Municipal Commissioner vide No.9995, dated 20.12.2007 in its meeting dated 28.07.2008 and 30.07.2008. The Committee also scrutinized the documents relating to the date of birth, previous orders regarding rate of wages, certificates pertaining to their qualification, nature of work assigned to and discharged by the employees and recommendations of the respective Section-In-charge in respect of 24 no. of N.M.R. employees who had been considered eligible for enhanced wages by the previous Committee. On verification, 22 NMR workers out of 24 were finally recommended for grant of enhanced wages as per their claim.

¶109

The names of the eligible 22 NMR workers are as under:

¶110

Sl.	Name of	D.Q.	Documents	Place of	Wages	Wages
No.	the NMRs	No./	produced	Engag-	recei-	recomme-

¶111

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶112

Page 13 of 28

¶113

Date ement ved nded
of
Birth
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. Narottam 580/ 1) HSC Urdu Semi- Skilled
Mohanty 03. Certificate Library skilled
04. 2) BIT Clerk
1970 Microcom
Certificate
3) Engagement
Order
No.228/
08.01.1993
4) Librarian
Recommen-
dation

¶114

7.5. As is revealed from the aforesaid Report that at the time of considering the case of NMR employees including the petitioner, the Committee recommended the name of the petitioner in the category “skilled” having requisite qualification. Careful reading of the Report transpires that the Committee scrutinized the documents relating to the date of birth, previous orders regarding rate of wages, service pertaining to their qualification, nature of work assigned to and discharged by the employees. In such view of the matter, no reason has been assigned in Order dated 21.11.2015 to discard or vary with the recommendation of the Committee for absorption of the

¶115

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶116

Page 14 of 28

¶117

petitioner in the post of “Junior Assistant”. It is of interest to observe that in the Selection Board Meeting held on 20.08.2014, where list of names of DLR employees were recommended for absorption as Junior Assistant, the Director, Municipal Administration & ExOfficio , Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department was one of the Members and signatory to the said proceeding. It is, thus, matter of grave concern that the self-same Director, Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio , Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department has issued Order No.30173-HUD-LFS-HR-10/2014/HUD, dated 21.11.2015 (Annexure-2) directing to absorb the petitioner in the work-charged establishment in the post of “Attendant”. Such arbitrary and fanciful order cannot be held to be tenable in the eye of law.

¶118

7.6. It needs to be emphasized that the propriety of order dated 21.11.2015 appears to have been questioned aptly inasmuch as the Director, Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio , Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department recommended the name of the petitioner for absorption against vacant post of “Junior Assistant” in LFS Cadre as a Member of the Committee. He should not have acted contrary to his decision as a Member of the

¶119

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶120

Page 15 of 28

¶121

Committee without ascribing plausible reason to vary with such decision taken in the Selection Board.

¶122

8. During the course of hearing, Sri Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing of the State laid emphasis on paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, which is re-produced herein below:

¶123

“9. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-5 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that as per the instruction of the Govt. in H&UD Department vide letter No.29149/HUD, dtd.17.10.2012 and No.31558/HUD dtd.16.11.2012, a list of 114 nos. of NMRs working in CMC was received as per the format duly filled in for taking necessary action in the matter, keeping in view to their seniority, suitability and eligibility for absorption in the appropriate post. However, Govt. in H&UD Department after due scrutiny of the aforesaid list have decided to give appointment in favour of 57 nos. of DLR/NMR in the post of Junior Assistant under LFS Cadre who have found suitable on all purpose.”

¶124

8.1. He submitted that on the basis of allegation made by Pralaya Anti-Corruption Committee (a busy body), the case of the petitioner has rightly been considered in the light of fake information submitted by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation for regularization of service in the post of Junior Assistant under LFS Cadre.

¶125

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶126

Page 16 of 28

¶127

8.2. Going by the counter affidavit sworn to by Bichitrananda Nayak, Establishment Officer, Cuttack Municipal Corporation on behalf of opposite party No.4 it is found except copy of Letter No.18485 dated 15.09.2014 enclosed to counter affidavit as Annexure-B/4, no tangible material is placed before this Court though said letter speaks about factual report and allegation of Pralaya Anti-Corruption Committee. The record does not reveal nor does the counter affidavit disclose about bringing adverse material to the notice of the petitioner at any point of time. It seems the material at hand of the opposite parties collected behind the back of the petitioner has been utilized against him. It is easy to allege “fake”, but in absence of proof of the same, the allegation should not have been utilized to the detriment of the petitioner.

¶128

8.3. It may not be out of place to have regard to the following observation made in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vrs. The State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCR 994 :

¶129

“Person aggrieved:

¶130

7. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the acVaction/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the

¶131

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶132

Page 17 of 28

¶133

Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person c satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide : State of Orissa Vrs. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. Vrs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vrs. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) Vrs. S. C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784].

¶134

8. A „legal right‟, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, „person aggrieved‟

¶135

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶136

Page 18 of 28

¶137

does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji Vrs. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361).

¶138

9. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka Vrs. University of Mumbai, AIR 2008 SC 1289, a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons.

¶139

10. In A. Subhash Babu Vrs. State of A. P., AIR 2011 SC 3031, this Court held:

¶140

„The expression „aggrieved person‟ denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant.‟

¶141

11. This Court, even as regards the filing of a habeas corpus petition, has explained that the expression, „next friend‟ means a person who is not a total stranger. Such a petition cannot be filed by one who is a complete stranger to the person who is in

¶142

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶143

Page 19 of 28

¶144

alleged illegal custody. (Vide: Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vrs. The Union of India & Ors., AIR 1951 SC 41; Sunil Batra (II) Vrs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579; Mrs. Neelima Priyadarshini Vrs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 2021; Simranjit Singh Mann Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 280; Karamjeet Singh Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 284; G and Kishore Samrite Vrs. State of U.P. & Ors., JT (2012) 10 SC 393).

¶145

12. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, ‘ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa’. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham Vrs. Arunachalam & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 856; Dalip Singh Vrs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114; State of Uttaranchal Vrs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.,

¶146

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶147

Page 20 of 28

¶148

(2010) 3 SCC 402; and Amar Singh Vrs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 69)

¶149

13. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vrs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware Vrs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540; and Neetu Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758)

¶150

14. In Ghulam Qadir Vrs. Special Tribunal & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33, this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under:

¶151

„There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India G can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to

¶152

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶153

Page 21 of 28

¶154

any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi.‟

¶155

15. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever.to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others.

¶156

Locus standi of respondent no.5:

¶157

16. As respondent no.5 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category, the garb adopted by him, of serving the cause of Scheduled Tribes candidates who might have been deprived of their legitimate right to be considered for the post, must be considered by this Court in order to determine whether respondent no. 5, is in fact, in a legitimate position to lay any claim before any forum, whatsoever.

¶158

17. This Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vrs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 407, held as under:

¶159

„Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the

¶160

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶161

Page 22 of 28

¶162

eye of the law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. Under the garb of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to make a case as that of general public interest. A person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved party.

¶163

18. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in K. Manjusree Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2008) 3 SCC 512, wherein it was held that, the applicant before the High Court could not challenge the appointment of a person as she was in no way aggrieved, for she herself could not have been selected by adopting either method. Moreover, the appointment cannot be challenged at a belated stage and, hence, the

¶164

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶165

Page 23 of 28

¶166

petition should have been rejected by the High Court, on the grounds of delay and nonmaintainability, alone.

¶167

19. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vrs. Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 1, it has been held that a violation of the equality clauses, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, or discrimination in any form, can be alleged, provided that, the writ petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable disadvantage qua other similarly situated persons.

¶168

20. While dealing with the similar issue, this Court in Raju Ramsingh Vasave Vrs. Mahesh Deorao Bhiavapurkar & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 54 held:

¶169

„We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer and the employee. This Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognizance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the special leave petition as a public interest litigation, but, as a public law litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest. A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to whether a party to a lis is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution. If

¶170

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶171

Page 24 of 28

¶172

such an enquiry subserves the greater public interest and has a far-reaching effect on the society, in our opinion, this Court will not shirk its responsibilities from doing so.‟ (See also: Manohar Joshi Vrs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 619)

¶173

21. In Vinoy Kumar Vrs. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 1739, A this Court held:

¶174

„Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.‟

¶175

22. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court, then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-motu, in such respect.”

¶176

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶177

Page 25 of 28

¶178

8.4. As is revealed from the documents enclosed to the counter affidavit, on the basis of allegation of a busy body (stranger having demonstrated no prejudice and no locus standi to have any say with regard to absorption of the petitioner in the LFS Cadre to work as Junior Assistant), a fishing and roving enquiry ought not to have been conducted to the detriment of the employee who has been working since 1993 as Clerk (NMR/DLR).

¶179

8.5. It has been affirmed in the rejoinder affidavit dated 14.07.2024 filed by the petitioner that:

¶180

“ 12. That the averments made at paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit are not all correct. The Pralaya Anti-Corruption Committee and its finding no way concerns the present petitioner. In the said inquiry one Y. Ramudu was asked to submit his credentials. The petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged enquiry.

¶181

13. That the allegation was that Shri Y. Ramudu had submitted Andhra University certificate. The allegation made therein, therefore, can no way be stretched to the present petitioner. In view of the above the petitioner should be considered for the post of Junior Assistant as has been decided in the meeting dated 20/08/2014.”

¶182

8.6. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner failed to produce original engagement order which disentitles him to be absorbed as “Junior Assistant”. Such a stance is de hors material

¶183

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶184

Page 26 of 28

¶185

on record, inasmuch as it is revealed from the Report of the Committee dated 29.01.2009 (Annexure-5) that it has scrutinized the relevant documents of 22 NMR workers including that of the petitioner. It found the petitioner eligible to work as Junior Assistant. Be that be, it is the Cuttack Municipal Corporation which is the custodian of the original letters of engagement. The original engagement letter must be available on the records maintained by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the allegation of the stranger having no foundation at all should not have been enquired into and such an allegation should not have been used behind the back of the petitioner in order to vary with the recommendation of the Selection Board.

¶186

8.7. This Court, therefore, repels the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Report of the Pralaya Anti-Corruption Committee triggered the action against the petitioner.

¶187

9. On analysis of the aforesaid facts and scrutiny of documents made available for perusal of this Court, irresistible conclusion is arrived at warranting setting aside the Order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department, opposite party No.1 vide Annexure-2 and consequential Order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, opposite

¶188

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶189

Page 27 of 28

¶190

Signature Not Verified

¶191

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-inCharge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Mar-2025 17:13:39

¶192

party No.4 vide Annexure-3. As a consequence thereof, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the discussions made herein above keeping in view the recommendation of the Selection Board in its meeting held on 20.08.2014 (Annexure-4) within a period of three months hence. In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶193

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE

¶194

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 17^th March, 2025//Aswini/MRS

¶195

W.P.(C) No.18093 of 2017

¶196

Page 28 of 28

Narottam Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narottam Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Nath Barik Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Mohapatra Vs Srasmini Ranjan Mohanty

Dayasagar Tripathy Vs M.D.,O.F.D.C.,Bbsr

Binita Nayak Vs Secretary,Taluk Legal Services Committee,Civil Court,Khurda

Rashmi Prava Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Tarapada Senapati Vs Manima Rani Ghosh