Disposed

Rajanikanta Patel v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC16 Sept 2025WP(C)/21557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking antedating of the petitioner's appointment and benefits after a wrongful non-selection in a 2011 recruitment, where the wrongly appointed candidate's termination was upheld. The court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to apply to Opposite Party No. 2 for a decision within three months, with any benefit on notional basis only.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajanikanta Patel Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 21557 of 2025

¶2

Rajanikanta Patel

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. S. Das, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

16.09.2025

¶10

Order No. 01

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶13

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

¶14

“Under these facts and circumstances as stated herein above, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule Nisi in the nature of appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders calling upon the Opposite Party Authorities, more particularly the Opposite Party No. 2 to show cause as to why the Petitioner's appointment shall not be treated retrospectively, and why the Petitioner shall not be bestowed with all the benefits including his promotional benefits from 2011 along with arrears and why no action shall be taken against the Opposite Party authorities for hampering the legitimate expectations of the Petitioner and

¶15

Page 1 of 4.

¶16

why such action of the Opposite Party No. 2 shall not be declared as illegal and arbitrary and against the interest of justice and if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause and/or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute against the Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice;

¶17

And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;

¶18

And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶19

It is contended that basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 in the year 2011, because of wrong award of mark, Petitioner while was not provided with the appointment, but one Ranjan Kumar Jit was so appointed on 04.04.2012.

¶20

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging his non-selection because of wrong award of mark and consequential appointment made in favour of the aforesaid Ranjan Kumar Jit, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 880(C) of 2012. The Tribunal vide order dtd.18.04.2016 under Annexure-6 when directed the authority concerned to cause an enquiry with regard to the award of mark given to the Petitioner and selection of the aforesaid Ranjan Kumar Jit, the matter was inquired into and PCCF, Odisha vide order dtd.25.08.2016 under Annexure-7, held the appointment of Ranjan Kumar Jit as illegal and also held the Petitioner entitled to get 68 marks instead of 66 marks. While holding so, PCCF, Odisha also directed to prepare a select list afresh and to provide appointment to the Petitioner.

¶21

Page 2 of 4.

¶22

4.2. It is contended that basing on such order passed by the PCCF, Odisha under Annexure-7, when the aforesaid Ranjan Kumar Jit was issued with the order of termination, he approached this Court by filing W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3125 of 2016. The said writ petition was dismissed vide Judgment dtd.20.09.2022 under Annexure-8 and after dismissal of the writ petition, Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.05.12.2022 under Annexure-9.

¶23

4.3. It is contended that since because of wrong award of mark, Petitioner was not selected and in his place the person so appointed, was ultimately terminated vide order dtd.25.08.2016, which has been affirmed by this Court in its judgment dtd.20.09.2022, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment from the date the aforesaid Ranjan Kumar Jit was so appointed on 04.04.2012 or at best from the date order dt.25.08.2016 was passed. It is accordingly contended that the date of appointment of the Petitioner be antedated to 04.04.2012 with extension of all service and financial benefits or at least from the date PCCF, Odisha passed the order dt.25.08.2016 under Annexure-7.

¶24

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the relief as claimed in the writ petition was never made by the Petitioner before the authority. It is accordingly contended that instead of moving the authority concerned to get the benefit, since the present writ petition has been filed, the same is not entertainable.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No. 2 to get the benefit of appointment from the date of appointment of the aforesaid

¶26

Page 3 of 4.

¶27

Ranjan Kumar Jit or at least from the date order dtd.25.08.2016 was passed by the said authority.

¶28

6.1. It is observed that if any such application is moved before Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of three (3) weeks hence, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. However, if the claim of the Petitioner will be allowed on consideration, the benefits if any be extended on notional basis only.

¶29

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶30

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶31

Sneha

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Sep-2025 10:19:05

¶34

Page 4 of 4.

Rajanikanta Patel v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajanikanta Patel v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasmita Dash Vs State of Odisha

Lt Colonel Dr Laxmi Dhar Bhuyan Vs Chief Army Staff,South Block,New Delhi

Lokanath Samal Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Palei Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Sahoo Vs State of Odisha