IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.201 of 2026 Ashis Kumar Samal …. Petitioner Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 13.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs; i) To appoint the petitioner against Group -C post in accordance with Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 as per G.A. & P.G. Department notification dtd. 4.4.2025. ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial and consequential benefits flowing consequent upon appointment Group -C post. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.” 4. It is contended that even though petitioner has got the benefit of appointment under the Rehabilitation p. 2 p. 2 Assistance Scheme as against a Group-D post, but taking into account his qualification, petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of appointment as against a Group-C post. It is also contended that in that regard petitioner though has made a representation under Annexure-4, but no action is being taken. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since there is no such provision for re- consideration of the petitioner’s claim after being provided with the appointment under the OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990, claim made by the petitioner under Annexure-4 is not entertainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and the fact that petitioner has already got the benefit of appointment under R.A. Scheme as against a Group-D post and there is no such provision under OCS(R.A.) Rules, 1990 for re- consideration of the claim, it is the view of this Court that claim made by the Writ Petitioner is not entertainable. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction as prayed for and dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev