Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 1907 of 2023 Sachin Kumar Behura ..... Petitioner Mr. B.K. Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. J.K. Mahapatra, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 5) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.03.2026 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. J.K. Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 5. 3. Even though the present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the process of selection initiated by the Society under Annexure-1 to fill up the post of Secretary of the Society, but in course of hearing learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that in the selection so initiated, Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 3 so available under Annexure-2. 3.1. It is further contended that persons placed at Sl. No. 1 & 2 though have joined elsewhere, but the Society when did not consider the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment, the present writ petition was filed challenging the process of selection. This Page 2 of 3. Court while issuing notice of the matter, has passed an interim order on 25.01.2023. 3.2. It is however contended that since from out of the merit list prepared by the Society under Annexure- 2, persons placed at Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 have already joined in service somewhere else, Petitioner being placed at Sl. No. 3, is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment. Accordingly, it is contended that Opp. Party No. 5 be directed to consider the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Secretary, basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 and the merit list published under Annexure-2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Society on the other hand contended that he has no instruction as to whether persons placed at Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 have joined somewhere else. It is however contended that if as contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, persons placed at Sl. Nos. 1 & 2 have joined somewhere else, Petitioner’s claim will be considered, if necessary application is moved by the Petitioner in that regard. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, grants liberty to the Petitioner to make an appropriate application before Opp. Party No. 5 to get the benefit of appointment, pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 and the merit list issued under Annexure-2. 5.1. It is observed that if any such application is moved before Opp. Party No. 5 within a period of two (2) weeks hence, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a Page 3 of 3. further period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. 5.2. It is further observed that while taking a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit, if as contended persons placed at Sl. Nos. 1 & 2, have joined somewhere else, a favourable decision be taken on the claim of the Petitioner by Opp. Party No. 5. 6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha