Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2025 DAILYLAW 65541 (ORI)

UMESH PRASAD RATH v. STATE OF ODISHA

WP(C)/32489/2024 · 2025-01-30

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.32489 of 2024 Umesh Prasad Rath …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Samal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 30.01.2025 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:- “Therefore in view of the above facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the Opp. Parties, more particularly the Opp. Party No. 3, i.e. District Education Officer, Ganjam to consider the application of the present petitioner dated 14.01.2020 under O.C.S( Rehabilitation Assistance), 1990 as amended in the year 2016 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethy vrs. State of Odisha and others (Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022) and to give the petitioner appointment against any suitable post taking into consideration his educational qualification within a stipulated time. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction /directions as may be deemed just and proper in favour of the petitioner. 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 an application to Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-3 and the p. 2 p. 2 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.3 to consider the application filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-3 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Designation: Personal Assistant