IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.19639 of 2020

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of

the Constitution of India, 1950.

----

Sri Basanta Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha, represented …. Opposite Parties

through its Principal Secretary

in the School & Mass Education

Department & Others

Advocates Appeared in this case

For Petitioner - M/s. Sameer Kumar Das,

P.K. Behera & N. Jena

(Advocates)

For Opp. Parties - Mr.S.K. Jee, Additional Government Advocate

CORAM

MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 08.09.2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J

The Petitioner, who had fought a slew of petitions before

this Court, has structured his prayer as under:-

“Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the office order no. 2025 dtd: 22.07.2020 of the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 under Annexure-9 and direct the Opposite Parties to extend all the benefits

of a Sikshya Sahayak, Junior Teacher and regular Teacher to the petitioner from the dates his batch mates or his juniors selected from the same selection pursuant to advertisement under Annexure-1 have availed the same i.e. Sikshya Sahayak from 16.12.2006, Junior Teacher from 16.12.2009 and regular Teacher from 16.12.2012 and grant all consequential service and financial benefits as that has been paid to those persons including his seniority in the cadre of Level-V of the services within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once name of a candidate rightly appears in the select list, selection process having been duly accomplished, he will have some right to consideration for appointment, subject to all just exceptions. The advertisement was dated 14.10.2006. Petitioner, along with others, was in the fray of selection and final select list came to be appeared on 16.12.2006. The petitioner figured at Sl. No.4 under SEBC category. However, he was not given appointment. The petitioner had filed W.P(C) No.13075 of 2007 wherein a Co- ordinate Bench, vide order dated 31.10.2007, directed consideration of his case. Thereafter, he filed CONTC No.409 of 2008 and by that time, his candidature was rejected by Collector, Cuttack vide order dated 20.05.2008. That led to filing of W.P.(C) No.28727 of 2011 wherein another Co-ordinate Bench, on 28.08.2012, directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court in Chandramani Jena V. State of Orissa, 2007 (II) OLR 577. Thereafter, the Collector, Cuttack passed order dated 23.02.2013 to offer appointment to the petitioner subject to approval of the State Government. In the meanwhile, against order dated 28.08.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.28727 of 2011, Writ Appeal No.267 of 2014 was filed by the State and the Division Bench of this Court negatived the same vide order dated 28.03.2018. Even thereafter, the appointment alluded the petitioner eventually resulting into he filing another case in W.P.(C) No.12624 of 2017, which came to be allowed by yet another Co-ordinate Bench on 02.08.2018 and ultimately, the petitioner secured appointment order on 03.08.2018. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the petitioner should be treated retrospective effect from the date on which the others in the selected list were given with all consequential benefits.

3. Learned AGA, having entered appearance for the opposite parties, has filed the counter affidavit resisting the petition inter alia contending that when all vacancies were existed in terms of the select list, no post was available in which the petitioner could be accommodated and therefore, to do justice, he has been accorded the appointment order although bit belatedly. When the appointment order is issued