Orissa High Court
Pramod Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 March, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19080 of 2020
Pramod Kumar Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Rath, ASC
Mr. S. Das, Advocate
(Opp. Party No. 3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.03.2024 Order No
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3.
3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.23.07.2020 so passed by Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-14. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Junior Clerk in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3 has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was overaged at the time of his initial engagement as Date Entry Operator and at no point of time Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk.
// 2 //
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that prior to passing of the impugned order, Petitioner had already been appointed as against the post of Junior Clerk and his claim has been recommended to the Director, Higher Education-Opp. Party No. 2 for consideration. It is contended that since Petitioner as found from Annexure-15 has been appointed as a Junior Clerk and his overage has been condoned by the Governing Body vide Annexure-5, the ground on which the impugned order has been passed, is no more sustainable in the eye of law and the matter requires fresh adjudication by the Opp. Party No. 1.
5. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 also fairly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the recommendation made under Annexure-15 and the condonation of age as found from Annexure-5.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment as a Jr. Clerk was rejected vide the impugned order on the ground that Petitioner is over aged and he has not been appointed as a Jr. Clerk. However, in view of the appointment of the Petitioner as Junior Clerk, which is reflected in the communication dtd.02.05.2018 under Annexure-15 and the condonation of overage by the Governing Body vide Annexure-5, the claim of the Petitioner is required to be reconsidered by Opp. Party No. 1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash office order dtd.23.07.2020 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-14. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision taking into Page 2 of 3 // 3 // consideration the appointment of the Petitioner as a Junior Clerk so reflected in the communication dtd.02.05.2018 under Annexure-15 and condonation of the overage so made by the Governing Body under Annexure-5. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Mar-2024 19:49:46 Page 3 of 3