WP(C)/24918/2026 of JITENDRA KUMAR RANA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 29 August 2026

ORDER

29.08.2026

1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Though the matter was listed under the heading “Fresh Admission”, but on the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter was heard at the stage of fresh admission and disposed of by the present order.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ applicable ad quash the order dated 15.12.2025, passed by Opp. Party No.4, with regard to not appointment to the dated Petitioner for the post of Home Guard, as per the Advertisement No.84/HGs Khordha, 13.05.2025, issued by Opp. party No.4, as deemed just and proper.

// 2 //

And/or pass such other order/orders/directions(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the Bonafide interest of justice.

5. It is contended that Petitioner was before this Court in the earlier Writ Petition challenging the advertisement issued by Opp. party No.4 for giving appointment as against Home Guard in Khurda district in W.P.(C) No.24470 of 2025. It is contended that this Court vide order dtd 08.09.2025 under Annexure-9 permitted the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No.5 therein (Opp. party No.5 in the present case also) to make a grievance and for its consideration. 5.1 It is contended that in terms of the said order, Petitioner though moved Opp. Party No.5 for consideration of his grievance, but Opp. party No.4 rejected the claim vide the impugned order dtd. 15.12.2025 under Annexure-10. It is contended that since in the earlier Writ Petition, this Court permitted the Petitioner to move Opp. party No.5 and with a direction on the said Opp. party to consider the Petitioner's grievance, Opp. party No.4 could not have taken up the issue by rejecting the Petitioner's claim vide the impugned order under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order needs interference of this Court.

6. Even though learned Addl. Standing Counsel made his submission justifying the rejection, but this Court taking into account the nature of order passed in W.P.(C) No.24470 of 2025 and direction issued in the said order, is of the view that it is Opp. Party No.5 who should have taken a decision on the Petitioner's claim.

6.1. Since the impugned order has been passed by Opp party No.4, while referring the earlier order of this Court,

// 3 //

this Court is of the view that Opp. party No.4 could not have rejected the Petitioner's claim. Accordingly, while quashing the impugned order dtd.15.12.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-10, this Court directs Opp. Party No.5 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim in terms of order dtd.08.09.2025 in W.P.(C ) No.24470 of 2025. Opp. Party No.5 is directed to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

sangita Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2026 18:50:03 Signature Not Verified