Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 28142 of 2024 Sushanta Padhan & Anr. ..... Petitioners Mr. T. Patnaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 06.03.2026 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. T. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. It is the grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 24.02.2023 under Annexure- 1, Petitioners could not get the benefit of appointment as they could not come within the zone of consideration, taking into account the vacancy indicated in the advertisement in question. 3.1. It is however contended that all the selected candidates recommended for appointment, since did not join and Petitioners’ name were in the provisional master merit list so published on 07.12.2023 by the Commission, they became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment against the vacancies remained unfilled due to non-joining of the recommended/selected candidates. 3.2. It is further contended that similar issue has been decided by this Court in its order dtd.28.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 10034 of 2022 and Page 2 of 3. order dtd.12.03.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 33636 of 2023. It is further contended that taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10034 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 33636 of 2023, the Commission had made subsequent recommendation to the Govt. to provide appointment to the Petitioners therein against the available non-joining vacancies. 3.3. It is accordingly contended that Petitioners being similarly situated, the Commission be directed to recommend the names of the present Petitioners for their appointment against the available non- joining vacancies to the Departments i.e. Revenue & Disaster Management as well as Panchayatiraj Department. 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since Petitioners at no point of time have ventilated their grievance before the appropriate authority for such recommendation, taking into account the non-joining vacancies, if any, the writ petition at the threshold is not maintainable. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and placing reliance on the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 10034 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 33636 of 2023, this Court while disposing the present writ petition, permits the Petitioners to make individual representation before Opp. Party No. 2 for recommendation of their names against the available non-joining vacancy to the concerned Department. 5.1. It is observed that if any such individual representation is moved before Opp. Party No. 2, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such representation. Page 3 of 3. 5.2. Petitioners are directed to provide a copy of this order and so also the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 10034 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 33636 of 2023 and other citations, if any in support of their claim before Opp. Party No. 2 for compliance. Opp. Party No. 2 after such consideration, if recommend the names of the Petitioners, appropriate follow up action be taken by the concerned Department without any further delay. 6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha