IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29820 of 2024 Bikash Chandra Das & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.03.2026 04. 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 challenging the order dtd.02.08.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-9. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that Petitioners when were not extended with the benefit of promotion, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10070 of 2024. This Court vide order dtd.29.04.2024 under Annexure-8 disposed of the Writ Petition with the following direction so contained in Para- 7:- “7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on careful consideration of the background facts as well as materials on record, further taking into consideration the rules under Annexure-1, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to constitute a selection committee in terms of Rule-11 as expeditiously as possible, if such committee has not been constituted in terms of the said rules. Further, it is directed that the selection committee be also asked to examine the case for promotion of the Petitioners in terms of the Rule-10 of the rules under Annexure-1. Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order if the same has not been carried out in the meantime. Such final order is likely to be passed by the Opposite Party No.1 be also communicated to the Petitioners within ten days from the date of taking such a decision.” 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that on the ground that the 2011 Rules is under amendment, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.02.08.2024 under Annexure-9. 4.2. It is contended that as on date no amendment has been carried to the 2011 recruitment Rules. However on the plea of such Rules are going to be amended, Petitioners’ claim was not considered in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that since no amendment has been carried to the 2011 Rules as on date, Opposite Party No.1 be directed to take a decision in the light of the order passed by this Court on 24.04.2024 in W.P.(C) No.10070 of 2024. 4.4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State while supporting the impugned order, contended that claim of the Petitioners pursuant to the earlier order was rejected as the 2011 Rules are due for amendment. But it is fairly contended that no such amendment has yet been made to the 2011 Rules. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the nature of direction issued by this Court to its order dtd.29.04.2024 under Annexure-8, since no amendment has been carried to the 2011 recruitment rules as yet, which is not disputed, this Court is of the view that the ground on which claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. On the pretext that the rules governing the claim are going to be amended, claim of the Petitioners could not have been rejected. Therefore, while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned order dtd.02.08.2024 under Annexure-9, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take the decision in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10070 of 2024, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due intimation. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat