IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO. 38828 OF 2023

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

Constitution of India.

Manas Kumar Mohanta …. Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Another …. Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : M/s. Sameer Kumar Behera & A. Jena,

Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. U.C. Behura,

Addl. Government Advocate

Mr. A. Khandelwal, Advocate on behalf of

Mr. D.R. Bhokta, Advocate

[OP No.4) CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

J U D G M E N T

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

Date of hearing & judgment :: 15.09.2025

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

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J

Petitioner was issued Appointment Order dated 18.07.2022, a copy

whereof avails at Annexure-4, as Assistant Training Officer, having been

successfully selected in the recruitment process. The appointment order prescribed 15 days for reporting to duty. However, petitioner could not report because of long illness & hospitalization. He made a representation dated 17.10.2022 for issuance of the appointment order after condoning delay, if any, on medical grounds. The same came to be rejected by the Director of Technical Education, vide order dated 14.03.2023, on the ground that after long lapse of time, the appointment withers away and vacancy is restored for next recruitment process. Aggrieved thereby, he is before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that public employment is scarcely available now a days; competition too is very high; no sane person, who has been selected & appointed to the post of the kind, would ever remain away; there was health issue with his client and therefore, within the stipulated period he could not report for duty nor could he request for the extension of period for reporting. In such a circumstance, this Court should come to the aid of meritorious candidate like his client.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the OPs vehemently opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. He contends that once appointment order is issued, the candidate should report for duty in time or at least make a request for extension of period for reporting; this having not been done, the appointment order has been liquidated by operation of law and eventual vacancy would go for imminent recruitment. He draws attention of the Court to Office Memorandum dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure-7) in support of his contention. Having so contended, he seeks dismissal of petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. The recruitment process began with the issuance of Notification dated 24.12.2016. The selection process having been accomplished duly, petitioner came to be selected followed by issuance of appointment order dated 18.07.2022 for the post of Assistant Training Officer. The appointment order specified 15 days for reporting duty, is true. However, petitioner could not report for duty nor could he request for extension of period because of acute ill-health, for which he was taking long treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in telling that no sane person would remain away from employment once selected and appointed, in these days of scarcity of government jobs.

4.2. Learned AGA is right to some extent in telling the Court that when time is specified, the candidate should report for duty before the expiry of the said period or at least he is expected to request for the extension of said period; both having not happened, no mercy can be shown to the petitioner. Broadly viewed, this is a text book argument. Once appointed, a right accrues to the citizen. Of course, such accrual is subject to certain conditions, which would apply during the normal period. During the abnormal period l