State Of Odisha And Others vs Sanjib Kumar Panda And Another

W.A. No.337 of 2016 and Misc. Case No.570 of 2016

There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 398 days in filing the present writ appeal. Going by the settled position in law as explained by the Supreme Court of India in Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 and subsequent decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654 and a large number of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, the explanation offered for the inordinate delay is not satisfactory at all and cannot be condoned.

Nevertheless, the appeal has also been examined on merits.

Challenging the cancellation of their appointments by an order dated 11th November, 2010 passed by the Collector, Subarnapur, the Respondents had filed writ petitions in which the impugned order dated 14th May, 2015 was passed following an order dated 9th March, 2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.19921 of 2010 (Udit Kumar Babu v. State of Odisha). The Court has been informed by Mr. Manoja Kumar Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Appellants that the writ appeal filed by the Statwe against the aforementioned order dated 9th March, 2015 was dismissed by this Court on the ground of limitation.

It is seen that pursuant to the cancellation of the appointments of the Respondents, a fresh advertisement was issued which was in terms of the order dated 29th April, 2004 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11748 of 2003 (Hrushikesh Bindhani and others v State of Odisha and others). Pursuant to that fresh advertisement, the Respondents again qualified and have been appointed. They are continuing in service.

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Appellants submits that the State still wants to challenge the impugned order of the learned Single Judge since in terms thereof the seniority of the Respondents would be reckoned from the dates of their initial appointments.

The impugned order was passed on 14th May, 2015 directing the Respondents to be given all consequential benefits by quashing the order dated 11th November, 2010 by which their appointments as Junior Teachers and regular Primary School Teachers under the Zilla Parishad was cancelled. For more than 7 years now, despite their being no stay of that order, it has not been implemented by the Appellants-State. The challenge to that order is also belated with the delay not being satisfactory explained.

Since the only benefit that the Respondents will now get is that their seniority will count from the date of their respective initial appointments, the Court sees no reason why it should interfere at this stage.

Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

……………………………..