IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.31398 of 2025 Amlan Kumar Pani …. Petitioner Dr. J.K. Lenka, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA Mr. S.K. Patra, Adv. COROM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 24.06.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Pursuant to order dated 07.11.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the CDM & PHO, Jajpur in Court with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The same be kept in record. 3. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-10, Petitioner was appointed as against UR (PH) category. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your lordship would be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of the mandamus of any other appropriate writ shall not be issued by quashing the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 and 11.09.2025 under Annexure-11 & 12 respectively by holding that after appointment of the petitioner for last 14 years, the Medical Examination of the petitioner afresh by the Medical Board of SCB Medical College is not permissible under law. And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal may think fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 6. It is contended that even though Petitioner was initially appointed on contractual basis vide order dated 27.08.2011 under Annexure-8 and pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, he was regularly appointed vide order dated 09.10.2018 so enclosed to instruction in UR(PH) category, but vide the impugned communication issued on 14.07.2025 & 11.09.2025 under Annexure- 11 & 12 of Opp. Party No.3, Petitioner has been directed to go for fresh verification of his disability. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2009 under Annexure-1 was initially appointed on contractual basis vide order dated 27.08.2011 under Annexure-8 and regularised vide order dated 09.10.2018, after 14 years of his engagement/appointment, he could not have been directed to go for fresh verification of his disability. 7.1. It is contended that in similar issue, this Court while interfering with the matter in W.P.(C) No.30520 of 2025 vide order dated 28.01.2026 held as follows in Para 7.5 and 7.6:- “7.5. Considering the nature of order passed under Annexure-7 and the order of regularization issued under Annexure-8, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity on the part of Opposite Party No.3, to direct the Petitioner to go for fresh medical examination of his disability and that too after about seven (7) years of his regularization and 13(thirteen) years of his reengagement. 7.6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the impugned communication dtd.14.07.2025 so issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-11, directs the Opposite Parties to allow the Petitioner to continue in terms of the order of regularization issued on 09.10.2018 under Annexure-8.” 7.2. It is accordingly contended that the direction issued in the impugned communication under Annexure-11 and 12 needs interference of this Court. 8. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel basing on the available materials and the instruction provided to the Court, contended that since Petitioner after being appointed on contractual basis vide order dated 27.08.2011 under Annexure-8, was regularised vide order dated 09.10.2018 in UR (PH) category, in order to ascertain his disability, letters under Annexure-11 and 12 were issued. 8.1. It is contended that since Petitioner’s appointment is under UR(PH) category, there is no illegality or irregularity in asking him to go for fresh verification of his disability vide Annexure-11 and 12. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with such action of Opp. Party No.3. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on 14.12.2009, Petitioner on being found eligible was appointed on contractual basis as a Pharmacist in the office of Opp. Party No.3 vide order dated 27.08.2011 under Annexure-8. 9.1. Subsequently, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, Petitioner was regularized vide order dated 09.10.2018 in UR(PH) category. Since Petitioner was appointed on regular basis in UR(PH) category vide order dated 09.10.2018 and is continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3 since 2011, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 30520 of 2025 so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that there is no occasion on the part of Opp. Party No.3 to ask the Petitioner to go for fresh verification of his disability, vide the impugned communication issued under Annexure-11 and 12. 9.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the direction contained in the impugned communication dated 14.07.2025 and 11.09.2025 under Annexure-11 and 12. While quashing the same, this Court permits the Petitioner to continue in his post. 10. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti