Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11562 of 2026 Amit Mohamansing ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra -versus- state of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – C.M. Singh, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 02.05.2026 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to; Issue rule NISI calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of Certiorari shall not be issued quashing the order dated 31.03.2026 vide Annexure-9 and further writ in the nature of Mandamous shall not be issued directing them to appoint the petitioner against the existing post of Jr. Clerk on regular basis with all consequential and financial benefits from the date his case Page 2 of 5. was recommended for compassionate appointment. If the opp. Parties failed to show any cause or to show insufficient cause, rule may be made absolute.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that mother of the Petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Teacher, died in harness on 22.06.2019 leaving behind his widower and one son (the present Petitioner) and one daughter. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Since the father of the Petitioner was alive and was unable to discharge official duties, the Petitioner with the consent of other legal heirs applied for a job on compassionate ground. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the application of the Petitioner was kept pending unnecessarily. Being aggrieved by such action, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4595 of 2023. This Court, vide order dated 17.02.2023, allowed the Writ Petition. Further, a direction was given to provide appointment to the applicant-petitioner under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 within a period of three months. 6. The State-Opposite Parties instead of implementing the order dt.17.02.2023 of this Court, challenged in W.A No.914 of 2023. This Court took up the said writ appeal along with other similar matters and vide a common judgment dated 25.09.2023, the writ appeals were disposed of and the Opposite Parties were directed to give appointment to the Petitioners under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as directed in W.P.(C) No.4595 of 2023. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that after disposal of the above noted writ application, the Petitioner was given Page 3 of 5. appointment to a Group-D post as Peon vide letter dated 31.03.2026, under Annexure-9, under the Opposite Party No.4. He further contended that initially the Petitioner had applied for appointment against a Group-C post by taking into consideration the educational qualification of the Petitioner. He further contended that under the OCS (RA) Rules, 1990, appointment to Group-C post was permissible. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that two of the similarly situated persons have also been given appointment against the Group-C post of Junior Clerk under Annexure-11 to the writ application vide order dated 06.08.2024 ignoring the just and fair claim of the present petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties should have considered the case of the Petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court in the above noted writ application as well as the direction of the Tribunal, and the Petitioner should have been given appointment against a Group-C post of Junior Clerk, which is lying vacant, by taking into consideration the educational qualification of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the Petitioner has been given appointment vide letter dated 31.03.2026 under Annexure-9 by taking into consideration the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4595 of 2023. He further contended that on an overall assessment and further taking into consideration the educational qualification and the competence of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been appointed as a Page 4 of 5. peon against a Group-D post. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that, the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in this matter. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ application is devoid of merit, hence it should be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record as well as the submissions made before this Court, further keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner had initially applied for a Group-C post under the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990 and similarly situated persons have been given appointed against Group- C post, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties should have considered the case of the Petitioner keeping in view his educational qualification and the application made by the Petitioner for appointment against a Group-C post. Since the Petitioner has been given appointment in obedience of the order passed by this Court on 17.02.2023, the Petitioner is given liberty to approach the Opposite Party No.4 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within a period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner and redress the grievance of the Petitioner in terms of the OCS(RA) Rules, 1990 within a period of three months from the date on which the Petitioner files his representation along with a certified copy of today’s order. Any decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.4 be also communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such a decision. While considering the representation of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.4 shall take into consideration the Page 5 of 5. law laid down by this Court in Manmohan Biswal & Ors. vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (WPC(OAC) No.3829 of 2015, disposed of vide judgment dated 27.01.2022). 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer