AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Out of 20 (twenty) applicants in OA No. 430/2016 disposed of on 12.03.2025, 07 (seven) applicants, namely Manoranjan Panda, Subrat Kumar Subudhi, Trupti Ranjan Mohanty, Narayan Chandra Nayak, Suvendra Kumar Sahoo, Md. Umar and Sk. Reyasat, have filed this C.P. alleging non-compliance of the order dated 12.03.2025 in the aforesaid OA and praying for initiation of proceedings against the alleged contemnors for their intentional, deliberate and willful violation of the order of this Bench.
The alleged contemnors filed their show cause stating therein that this Bench in order dated 12.03.2025 directed the respondents to extend similar benefits to the applicants as were extended to 12 persons in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 8814/2004 within a period of 90 days. The order of this Bench dated 12.03.2025 in OA 430/2016 was challenged by the respondents in W.P(C) No. 17656/2025 and the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 18.02.2026 dismissed the same with further observation that the respondents shall implement the order of this Bench within a period of eight weeks and also granted liberty to the respondents to solicit any information or documents from the applicants as may be required for processing their claim as per the order of this Bench and, that, in that guise delay shall not be brooked. It is stated that after exhausting official procedures, necessary steps were taken to complete the process in compliance of the order of this Bench.
In the process of scrutinization, it was found that out of 20 (twenty) applicants in the OA, K.Ashok Kumar Patnaik, Gangadhar Padhi and Muralidhar Dash, who were applicant Nos. 8, 11 and 20 in the OA, died meanwhile. Also, Judhistira Sundaray, who applicant no. 18 in the OA, meanwhile reached the age of 60 years, his DoB being 08.07.1966. Thus, 17 (seventeen) applicants were noticed to appear in the recruitment process; and, during verification, it was found that (5 five) applicants, namely Manoranjan Panda, Surendra Kumar Sahoo, Subrat Kumar Subudhi, Pratap Kesari Jena and Bhima Charan Das, who were applicants 1, 7, 10, 13 and 14 in the OA, did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of age as per employment notification dated 13.08.2019. Out of remaining 12 (twelve) candidates, the educational certificate submitted by Md. Umer, who was applicant no.2 in the OA and is No.6 in this CP, was found not genuine as per the report of the concerned University dated 09.07.2026. Similarly, Sk. Reyasat, who was applicant No.15 in the OA and No.7 in this CP, was found unfit for any category during medical examination as per extant Railway Medical Rules. It is stated that 9 (nine) applicants were found eligible in the process of recruitment, out of which, 8 (eight) applicants, namely Ashok Kumar Sethi (applicant No.3 in the OA), Trupti Ranjan Mohanty (applicant No.5 in the OA and No. 3 in this CP), Krishna Prasad Acharya (applicant No.6 in the OA), Narayan Chandra Nayak (applicant No.9 in the OA and No. 4 in this CP), Muralidhar Dash (applicant No.12 in the OA), Gajanan Routray (applicant No.16 in the OA), Trilochan Barik (applicant No.17 in the OA) and Lalita Sarangi (applicant No.19 in the OA) were issued offer of appointment on 04.09.2026 and, to Sri Satyanarayan Pati (applicant No.4 in the OA), on 17.09.2026. The alleged contemnors also rendered apology for the delay in compliance by stating that it was not intention or deliberate but was occasioned due to administrative procedures and prayed for dismissal of this CP.
According to the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, the denial of employment on the ground of age bar and educational certificate was no genuine are not justified because the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa has directed for relaxation of age. Hence, the compliance being not the full compliance of the order, this CP is liable to proceed ahead against the contemnors as per the act and rules. This was strongly opposed by the Ld. Counsel for the alleged contemnors in stating that nowhere the Hon’ble High Court directed that even if the applicants did not fulfill the age criteria as per the Notification dated 13.08.2019, they should be appointed by condoning the age. Rather, the direction of the Hon’ble High Court was to the extent that if any one crossed the age limit by efflux of time due to continuous litigation, in that case, delay is to be brooked. Hence, the stand of the applicant is not tenable in the eyes of law.
On cumulative consideration of the pleadings and materials placed in support thereof in connected cases, we are at a loss to accept the stand of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that there was any such direction for condonation of the upper age limit notified in the Notification dated 13.08.2019 and, that, appointment can be offered irrespective of verification of the genuineness of the educational certificates etc. Since, respondents-department in compliance of the order of this Bench offered appointment to the applicants, who were eligible in all respect, and denied such appointment due to non-fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per Notification so also finding the educational certificate not genuine and unfit for any category during medical examination as per extant Railway Medical Rules, we are not convinced that there has been any intentional and deliberate violation of the order of this Bench so that this CP is to proceed further as per the Contempt of Court Act and Rules.
This CP is accordingly, dropped. Notices are discharged. Parties to bear their own costs.