Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27111 (ORI)

Paresh Kumar Mallick v. State of Odisha

2026-01-28

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

body2026
ORDER : 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order dtd.06.11.2025 and further order passed on 25.11.2025 and 08.12.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the CDM & PHO, Jajpur vide its letter dtd.08.01.2026 with service of copy on the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Court. The same be kept in record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously he pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opposite Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, letter No.5332 dt.14.07.2025 under Annexure-11 and the letter no.1563 dt.18.09.2025 under Annexure-12 and consequential letter, if any, be quashed and the opposite Parties be directed not to proceed against the petitioner any further in view of the fact that the petitioner is continuing in service as a candidate under SEBC category: And further be pleased to pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 5. It is contended that Petitioner was initially appointed as a Pharmacist on contractual basis vide order of appointment issued by Opposite Party No.3 on 10.12.2010 under Annexure-1. 5.1 . It is contended that while so continuing, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.27.08.2011 so issued under Annexure-4-Series. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 23.03.2012, in O.A. No.3119(C) of 2011 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was reinstated as a contractual Pharmacist vide order dtd.10.04.2012 under Annexure-7. 5 . 2 . It is contended that while so continuing as a contractual pharmacist in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3, vide order dtd.09.10.2018 under Annexure-8, Petitioner was regularized as a Pharmacist and Petitioner was so regularized as a SEBC category candidate. 5 . 2 . It is contended that while so continuing as a contractual pharmacist in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3, vide order dtd.09.10.2018 under Annexure-8, Petitioner was regularized as a Pharmacist and Petitioner was so regularized as a SEBC category candidate. However, while continuing as a regular Pharmacist under Opposite Party No.3 in terms of Annexure-8, the impugned communication was issued by the self-same Opposite Party No.3 on 14.07.2025 under Annexure-11, directing the Petitioner to appear before the Superintendent SCB, Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, for medical examination of his disability on the ground that Petitioner was re-engaged pursuant to the order of the Tribunal as a PH candidate. 5 . 3 . Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner after his termination vide order dtd.27.08.2011, was reinstated vide order dtd.10.04.2012 under Annexure-7, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 23.03.2012 in O.A. No.3119 of 2011 and in the said order of re-engagement, nothing was indicated that Petitioner was so re-engaged as a PH candidate. 5 . 4 . It is also contended that Petitioner was regularized vide order dtd.09.10.2018 as a SEBC category candidate and now after more than seven(7) years of his regularization and 15(fifteen) year of his initial engagement, the impugned communication has been issued on 14.07.2025 under Annexure-11, directing the Petitioner to appear for fresh examination of his disability. 5 . 5 . It is contended that Petitioner was never re-engaged as a PH candidate pursuant to the order of the Tribunal vide order under Annexure-7 and instead regularized as a SEBC category candidate, vide order under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that there was no occasion on the part of Opposite Party No.3 to direct the Petitioner to undergo fresh medical examination with regard to his disability vide the impugned notice dtd.14.07.2025 under Annexure-11. 5 . 6 . It is further contended that Petitioner on being found suitable and after due verification of his disability, which is a prime requirement was offered with the order of engagement as a contractual Pharmacist vide order dtd.10.12.2010 under Annexure-1 and pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, was only re-engaged vide order dtd.10.04.2012 under Annexure-7. 5 . 6 . It is further contended that Petitioner on being found suitable and after due verification of his disability, which is a prime requirement was offered with the order of engagement as a contractual Pharmacist vide order dtd.10.12.2010 under Annexure-1 and pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, was only re-engaged vide order dtd.10.04.2012 under Annexure-7. After allowing the Petitioner to continue for more than 15 years, the direction to go for fresh examination of his disability is not permissible in the eye of law and it is nothing but to harass the Petitioner. 5 . 7 . It is also contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 06.11.2025, Petitioner has not appeared in terms of Annexure-11. Basing on the instruction so provided by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, it is contended that the Petitioner was appointed as a contractual Pharmacist under SEBC-PH category vide order dtd.10.12.2010 under Annexure-1. However, when complain was made with regard to the appointment of the Petitioner, basing on the order passed by the Director of Health Services, Odisha on 18.03.2011 vide Annexure-A/2, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.27.08.2011 under Annexure-4. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3119 of 2011, Petitioner was reinstated as a contractual Pharmacist vide order dtd.10.04.2012 under Annexure-7 and in the said order of re-engagement, nothing was indicated that Petitioner has to go for fresh examination of his disability. 5 . 8 . It is accordingly contended that direction issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-11 is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable for interference. 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate taking into account the instruction so provided contended that since Petitioner’s initial engagement under Annexure-1 is as a PH Category candidate, when complaint was made with regard to his appointment as a PH candidate, Petitioner was terminated vide order under Annexure-4. 6.1 . However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, Petitioner though was re-engaged vide order dtd.10.04.2012 and he was regularized vide order dtd.09.10.2018 under Annexure-8, his disability has not yet been ascertained afresh. Accordingly, Annexure-11 has been issued by Opposite Party No.3, wherein Petitioner has been directed to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his disability. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the direction so contained in Annexure-11. 7 . Accordingly, Annexure-11 has been issued by Opposite Party No.3, wherein Petitioner has been directed to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his disability. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the direction so contained in Annexure-11. 7 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially appointed as contractual Pharmacist vide order dtd.10.12.2010 under Annexure-1. In the said order, Petitioner’s name finds place at S.L.No.5 and his category was indicated as SEBC (PH). 7 . 1 . As found Petitioner when was terminated vide order dtd.27.08.2011 under Annexure-4-Series, challenging the same, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3119(C) of 2011. The Tribunal vide order dtd.23.03.2012 under Annexure-6 while quashing the order of termination, directed the Opposite Parties to reinstate the Petitioner in his services with immediate effect. 7.2. While complying such direction of the Tribunal, Petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd.10.04.2012 under Annexure-7 and in such order of appointment nothing was indicated that, Petitioner has to go for fresh examination of his disability. As found Petitioner while continuing as such on his re-engagement, was regularized vide order dtd.09.10.2018 under Annexure-8 as a SEBC category candidate and in the said order name of the Petitioner finds place at S.L. No.13. Prior to regularization of the services of the Petitioner, he was never asked to go for verification of his disability. 7.3 . However, much after his regularization, vide the impugned communication dtd.16.10.2025 under Annexure-11, Petitioner is now being directed to appear before the authorities of SCB, Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for fresh examination of his disability, so assailed in the present Writ Petition. 7.4 . This Court after going through the materials available on record finds that Petitioner was re-engaged pursuant to the order of the Tribunal vide order dtd.10.04.2012 under Annexure-7 and the said order nothing was indicated that Petitioner has to go for fresh verification of his disability. Subsequently, Petitioner was regularized as a SEBC category candidate vide order dtd.09.10.2018 and in the said order, nor prior to such regularization, Petitioner was directed to go for fresh verification of his disability. However, after such regularization of his services, the impugned communication has been issued directing the Petitioner to go for fresh medical examination of his disability. 7 . 5 . However, after such regularization of his services, the impugned communication has been issued directing the Petitioner to go for fresh medical examination of his disability. 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 re-engagement. 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. 8 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.