Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 3424 of 2013 Govinda Prasad Nath ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 6) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 25.06.2026 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that he has got no objection, if Opp. Party No. 5 will be deleted from the cause title. Such prayer is allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is permitted to delete Opp. Party No. 5 from the cause title in Court. 4. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Mr. P.C. Jena, leaned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 6. 5. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the other appropriate writ/writs, Page 2 of 5. of mandamus direction/directions, order/orders by directing the opp. parties to proceed with a fresh selection by issuing necessary advertisement to fill up the post of GRS of Balarampur G.P. instead of appointing the person from the merit list which has lost its validity after the appointment or resignation of the original incumbent and quash the order dtd:6.2.2013 communicated on 7.2.2013 under Annexure-5. And further the Hon'ble court be please to direct the opposite parties to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of GRS of Balarampur GP and appoint him in the event he is found suitable and selected within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.” 6. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, person who was placed at Sl. No. 1 of the merit list, was extended with the benefit of appointment and joined on 12.12.2008. It is contended that the said person resigned after around 4 years i.e. on 27.06.2012. 6.1. It is contended that even though the selected candidate resigned after rendering service for around 4 years and the select list so prepared, had lost its validity, but basing on an innocuous order passed by this Court at the instance of Opp. Party No. 6, wherein this Court directed for consideration of his representation, Opp. Party No. 6 was given with the benefit of appointment vide the impugned order dtd.07.02.2013 under Annexure-5 on the ground that Opp. Party No. 6 was at Sl. No. 2 of the merit list. It is accordingly contended that since after appointment of the selected candidates, the select list lost Page 3 of 5. its validity, Opp. Party No. 6 could not have been appointed, being placed at Sl. No. 2 in the said list vide the impugned order under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that the order of appointment issued in favour of Opp. Party No. 6 being illegal, needs interference of this Court. 7. Mr. P.C. Jena, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 6 on the other hand contended that in the select list published pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Opp. Party No. 6 was at Sl. No. 2 and because of the resignation of the selected/appointed candidate on 27.06.2012, she made a representation to provide her with appointment in the vacancy arising out of the resignation of the selected/appointed candidate. When the same was not considered, she approached this Court in the pending writ petition so filed in W.P.(C) No. 19311 of 2008, when directed for consideration of her representation, in consideration of the same, Opp. Party No. 6 was provided with the appointment vide order dtd.07.02.2013 under Annexure-5. 7.1. It is contended that in terms of the said order, Petitioner not only joined but also continuing as on date. It is further contended that since in the meantime Opp. Party No. 6 has already rendered service for more than 13 years and she has no fault with her appointment, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bikash Mahalik Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2022 (I) ILR-CUT-108), she is eligible and entitled to continue in the said post. 7.2. This Court in Para 27 & 28 of the Judgment in the case of Bikash Mahalik has held as follows:- “27. In Pratima Sahoo (supra), this Court held that the order of disengagement of the petitioner from Page 4 of 5. the post of Sikshya Sahayak, pursuant to decision of the district administration, having found qualified in the selection process and appointed after resigning from her erstwhile post of Anganwadi Worker and having worked for six to eight months, amounts to putting the petitioner in prejudicial and disadvantageous position and the reason assigned for later finding the petitioner not suitable for securing less marks than other meritorious candidates do holds good, the petitioner cannot be found faulted by the mistake committed by the appointing authority in calculating the percentage. Consequentially, direction was given to absorb the petitioner forthwith applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the said case. 28. In view of the law and fact, as discussed above, the irresistible conclusion is that the show-cause notice dated 31.03.2015 under Annexure-13 issued by opposite party no.3, the letter dated 09.02.2015 under Annexure-13/1 issued by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1 and letter dated 26.03.2015 under Annexure-13/2 issued by the Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department to opposite party no.2 cannot sustain. Therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. Pursuant to interim order passed on 07.04.2019 by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal since the petitioner is still continuing, he shall be allowed to continue with all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.” 8. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since Opp. Party No. 6 was at Sl. No. 2 of the merit list so published pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1, Page 5 of 5. while considering the request made by the said Opp. Party in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19311 of 2008 dtd.11.09.2012, Opp. Party No. 6 was provided with the appointment vide order dtd.07.02.2013 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with such order of engagement issued in favour of Opp. Party No. 6. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court is of the view that since in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19311 of 2008, Opp. Party No. 6 has got the benefit of appointment vide order dtd.07.02.2013 and in the meantime more than 13 years have passed, in view of the decision in the case of Bikash Mahalik, this Court is of the view that Opp. Party No. 6 is eligible for her continuance. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of appointment issued in favour of Opp. Party No. 6 vide order dt.07.02.2013 under Annexure-5 and dispose of the writ petition without any interference with order dt.07.02.2013. 10. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha