Malaya Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the writ petition be confined to petitioner No.1. The writ application in respect of petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 is permitted to be not pressed.

¶11

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

¶12

“ In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶13

1. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for regularization/appointment to the post of Accountant-cumData Entry Operator by giving effect to the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2025, treating the date of completion

¶14

1

¶15

of five years of service as on 02.05.2025 as valid eligibility. (2) Declare that the action of the Respondents in denying consideration to the Petitioners despite their eligibility as on 02.05.2025 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

¶16

(3) Declare the Petitioners entitled to parity of treatment with those GRSS who have already been absorbed by virtue of the Resolution dated 02.05.2025, by recognizing that both classes of employees constitute a homogenous group.

¶17

(4) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise, quashing and/or reading down Rule 10 of the Odisha Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2024, insofar as it restricts eligibility only to those Gram Rozgar Sevaks (GRS) who had completed five years of continuous service by 27.02.2024, as being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

¶18

(5) Direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of Rule 10 of 2024 Rules to the Petitioners, treating completion of five years of service by 02.05.2025 as sufficient compliance, and to consider their cases for regularization accordingly, within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court ; (6) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶19

The facts of the case, briefly stated are the petitioner has been working as Gram Rojgar Sevak since the year 2019-20. As per the Odisha Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2024, the Gram Rojgar Sevaks having five years of continuous service are eligible to be absorbed, as a one time measure, in the regular post of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator as per Rule 10 of the said Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules i.e., 14.07.2024, he had completed only four years and some months of service and therefore fell short of the requirement of five years continuous service by some months

¶20

2

¶21

only. As a result, he has not been considered for absorption to the regular post. In the meantime, there being huge number of vacancies i.e., 7142 vacancies in the post of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator across the state, the Government, vide Resolution dated 02.05.2025 has relaxed some of the provisions by permitting absorption of Gram Rojgar Sevaks from one district as Accountantcum-Data Entry Operator in other districts.

¶22

Mr. Dalai, refers to Rule 17 of the 2024 Rules. He submits, invoking such clause the persons like the petitioner can be absorbed to fill up the vacancies. 6. Learned State counsel submits, this is a policy matter of the Government affecting all similarly placed persons and therefore, this Court may be slow to entertain such prayer. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the 2024 Rules, this Court finds that Rule 17 confers power on the Government to relax the provisions of the rules in public interest. Rule 17 is reproduced below:

¶23

“17. Relaxation- Where the Government are of the opinion that it is necessary on expedient so to do in the public interest, they may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of employees.”

¶24

It is not disputed that the Government has invoked this provision as per its Resolution dated 02.05.2025. This was obviously done in public interest. It is further not disputed that large number of vacancies exist in the post of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator across the State. Keeping the posts pending will obviously not be in public interest.

¶25

This Court is therefore, of the view that the petitioner has at least

¶26

3

¶27

made out an arguable case for consideration by the appropriate authorities.

¶28

Since the petitioner has not approached the concerned authority before coming to this Court, the writ application is disposed of granting him liberty approach the Secretary to Government in the department of Panchayati Raj and Drinking Water by submitting a detailed representation within two weeks from today. If such representation is submitted, the Opposite Party No. 1 shall consider the same taking note of the power conferred under Rule 17 of the 2024 Rules and pass necessary orders thereafter. The final decision shall be taken within three months thereafter.

¶29

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶30

Deepak

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2025 16:23:03

¶33

4

Malaya Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malaya Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Dash Vs State of Odisha

Maa Kamala Shg, Balasore Vs State of Odisha

Mani Chaeran Swain Vs Nrusingha Charan Mohapatra

Mahavir Bhol Vs Union of India

Ananta Narayan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Hemakanta Bhoi Vs State of Odisha