IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5903 of 2013 Bijaya Ku. Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Adyasidhi Mishra, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr. S. Rath, Advocate -versus- Commandant 149 Battalion & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 22.06.2026 22. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that let this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the writ application and after hearing the counsel of the parties set aside the order dated 22.08.2009 under Annexure-3, And also further be pleased to direct the Opp. parties to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his appointment with all financial benefits, And may pass any order (s), writ (s), direction (s) as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray”. 4. It is contended that while continuing in the training after his recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) since Petitioner sustained an injury he could not continue with the training and accordingly was held not eligible to get the benefit of appointment. 4.1. Challenging such action of the Opposite Parties, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4375 of 2005. This Court while disposing the Writ Petition vide judgment dtd.29.06.2009 under Annexure-1 though held the action of the Opposite Parties as legal and justified, but observed that Petitioner’s claim for his appointment as against any Class-IV post be considered. 4.2. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.22.08.2009 under Annexure-3 of Opposite Party No.3. 4.3. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was duly selected and appointed as a Constable (GD) and because of mis- fortune and sustaining the injury during the training, he was not appointed as against the said post, but taking into account the observation and direction contained in judgment dtd.29.06.2009 of this Court, Petitioner’s claim for his adjustment as against any Class-IV post could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the impugned order under Annexure-3. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that Opposite Party No.3 be directed to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against any Class-IV post, taking into account the fact that Petitioner was found eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Constable (GD). 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned CGC on the other hand contended that against the order impugned, Petitioner has got an alternate remedy of approaching the Revisional Authority i.e. Director General, CRPF as provided under Rule-29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as Petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of revision. 6. At this point of time, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays for impletion of Director General, CRPF as Opposite Party No.4 in Court. Such prayer is allowed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opposite Party No.4 for consideration of his claim to get the benefit of adjustment / appointment as against any Class-IV post taking into account the observation and direction contained in judgment dtd.29.06.2009 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4375 of 2005. 7.1. It is observed that if any such application will be filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.4 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No.4 be communicated to the Petitioner. 7.2. This Court further observe that while taking a decision, a lenient view be taken taking into account the fact that Petitioner was duly selected and appointed but could not get the benefit of appointment because of the injury sustained in course of the training. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat