IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3652 of 2025 Rajiv Lochan Mahapatra …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- The Vice Chancellor Central University of Odisha, Koraput & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Das, ASC COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 08.04.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi asking show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed by declaring the advertisement for regular recruitment so far the single post of Junior Engineer (Electrical)/ Technical Supervisor (Electrical) concerned to be illegal and arbitrary, and to show cause as to why the services of the petitioner as against the only Technical Supervisor (Electrical)/ Junior Engineer (Electrical) post available in the cadre under the Central University of Odisha shall not be regularized from the date of completion of 6 years of service, w.e.f.09.03.2022 with all service & financial benefits to be released within a stipulated time under the University. In the event, no show cause or insufficient show cause is filed then the said rule be made absolute in favour of the petitioner. Or in alternative, in the interest of justice & equity, any other appropriate Writ(s), direction(s), order(s) be passed so as to give complete relief to the petitioner in p. 2 p. 2 the given facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray. 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievances, the Petitioner has made a representation to Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure-8 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection. 5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-8 within a period of three (3) months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat