Orissa High Court
Dr.Bhagyashree Parida vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 6 April, 2023
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9495 of 2023
Dr.Bhagyashree Parida .... Petitioner
Mr.Avijit Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr.Saswat Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 06.04.2023
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is continuing in the post of Medical Officer at C.H.C., Patna in the district of Keonjhar pursuant to her appointment order dated 15.03.2019. On 25.04.2019 the Petitioner was relieved for joining in P.G. courses. Thereafter, after completion of P.G. course, she again returned to C.H.C. Patna and continued to work as Medical Officer. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the application of the Petitioner for grant of NOC under Annexure-2 submitted that the Petitioner in her application has stated that since her husband has been allotted Mch CTVS in VMMC College, Delhi in NEET-SS this year to undergo a three years course, the Petitioner applied for NOC from the Government to apply for senior residency in O & G department in the Delhi Medical Council. Accordingly, on 05.01.2023 she submitted an application // 2 // before the Additional Chief Secretary, Health and Family Welfare department, Opposite Party No.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that she received a communication on 12.01.2023 from the Deputy Secretary to Government intimating her that her application seeking NOC from the Government has been rejected after careful consideration and that the case of the Petitioner along with two others has been rejected on the ground that it has been decided by the Government not to allow them to apply for senior Residency/fellowship in different disciplines at different medical institutions. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
4. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to a decision of this Court in the matter of Dr.Dipti Samal-v.- State of Odisha and another in W.P.(C) No.9308 of 2022 decided on 20.04.2022 submitted that in an identical scenario, this Court was pleased to interfere with the matter and directed the Government to issue NOC to the Petitioner in the abovenoted case. He, further contended that the above referred case, the Petitioner also applied for NOC to appear in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor, Dentistry at AIMS, Guwahati.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the Petitioner had not filed an application pursuant to which she is going to apply for any job. Therefore, it was submitted that the very basis in the application for grant of NOC is vague and baseless. Moreover, learned Additional Government Advocate also contended that there is dearth of Doctors in the State of Odisha and keeping in view the medical urgency in the State, the State is not in a position to dispense with the services of the Government Doctors, who have been posted as Government Medical Officers in different C.H.Cs. in the State. On such ground, learned Additional Government Advocate // 3 // submitted that the application submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-2 is devoid of merit and the rejection order dated 12.01.2023 under Annexure-3 is legal and valid and does not warrant any interference in this case.
6. This Court upon a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful scrutiny of the background facts involved in the present Writ Petition as well as going through the case in Dr.Dipti Samal case (supra) that the Petitioner submitted a representation just to participate in the selection process for registration in Delhi Medical Council to seek for a better future prospect and a better career. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the Petitioner is not going to leave the job immediately. Therefore, there is no apprehension of any immediate disruption in the service rendered by the C.H.C.,Patna at Keonjhar. Further, considering the principle followed in the case of Dr.Dipti Samal case (supra) passed by this Court, this Court is also considered view that in absence of any statutory restriction, the Opposite Parties are not within the jurisdiction and authority to reject the application of the Petitioner for grant of NOC. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to quash the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 under Annexure-3 so far the same relates to Sl.No.3 of the said order. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to issue NOC as sought for by the Petitioner forthwith preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
// 4 //