CUTTACK, India, Feb. 19 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Jan. 19:

1. This Intra-Court Appeal by the State & its Official seeks to call in question a learned single Judge's order dated 30.06.2023 entered in Respondent's W.P.(C) (OA) No.1554 of 2019. The operative portions of the order reads as under:-

"6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing parties, this Court dispose of the Writ Petition in the light of the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2023 in WPC (OA) No.2062 of 2017 and batch."

2. Obviously, the above order because of parity of facts involved, duplicates the relief granted to the litigants in W.P.(C) (OA) No.2062 of 2017 between Biplab Kumar Sahoo V. State of Odisha, along with companion cases disposed off vide order dated 22.03.2023. Therefore, it is relevant to reproduce the operative portions of the said order, which is as under:-

"6.1. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited (supra) it is the view of this Court that any clarification issued contrary to the provisions contained in the rule cannot override the statutory rules. Therefore, the action taken by the Opposite Parties in providing appointment to the Petitioners on contractual post relying on the clarification issued on 06.02.2015 under Annexure-6 is not legal and justified.

Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court as cited (supra) and the benefits extended in favour of similarly situated persons as reflected in Annexure-9, this Court is inclined to quash the order of rejection so passed in the case of Biplap Kumar Sahoo in WPC(OAC) No.2062 of 2017. While quashing the said order, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit of regular appointment in favour of the Petitioners from their initial date of appointment. On such extension of the benefit of regular appointment, all service and financial benefit as due and admissible shall also be extended in favour of the Petitioners. This Court directs the Opposite Party No.3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the AppellantsState vehemently urges the following grounds for the invalidation of impugned order:

3.1. The learned Single Judge grossly erred in granting relief to the Respondent herein, i.e., the Writ Petitioner in terms of decision in Biplab Kumar Sahoo supra without adverting to the arguable merits of the case on its own. In support of this, he presses into service the decision in Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara V. The Govt. of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xwpgv%2BIC7hnXblMjfEXOosUVgM4%2BIXyV9C7jxJxKmIRn&caseno=WA/1848/2025&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010841812025&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.