WP(C)/1083/2020 of ASHOK KUMAR BAAG Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 17 August 2026

ORDER

17.08.2026

19. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of mandamus by directing the Opp. Parties to consider the legitimate claim of the petitioner in the matter of regularization of service in the post of Jr. Accountant before going for recruitment on the basis of advertisement dated 31.12.2019.

And further be pleased to quash the advertisement dated 31.12.2019 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

// 2 //

And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper to give complete relief to the petitioner And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.”

4. It is contended that Petitioner was before this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P.(C) No.19196 of 2009. This Court vide order dtd.28.02.2012 under Annexure-3, disposed of the said Writ Petition with various directions.

4.1. It is contended that review petition filed against order dtd.28.02.2012 was also rejected by this Court vide order dtd.26.04.2018 under Annexure-4. Not only that challenge made to the order passed in review so assailed by the Opposite Party-Corporation, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, was also rejected vide order dtd.21.01.2019 under Annexure-5.

4.2. It is contended that on the face of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when the order was not complied with, Petitioner filed CONTC No.1360 of 2012. The said contempt petition was disposed of vide order dtd.22.02.2019 under Annexure-6 on the following term. “Heard learned counsel for the parties. This contempt proceeding has been initiated for alleged non-compliance of order dated 28.02.2012 passed in WP (C) No. 19196 of 2009.

// 3 //

It is submitted by learned counsel for Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.-opposite party No.2 that the order in question has already been complied with vide order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation. In view of the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Managing Director, Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.-opposite party No.2-contemnor, we are prima facie satisfied that the order of this Court has been complied with, though the order is passed after lapse of seven years. However, it is a very serious thing taking into consideration the delay in complying with the order. We deprecate the conduct of the opposite party-Corporation. In future, it will be viewed very seriously. It will be open for the petitioner to challenge if he feels aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by opposite party No.2. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation.”

4.3. It is contended that since the order dtd.28.02.2012 under Annexure-3 so upheld by the Apex Court was not complied with in full and in the meantime an advertisement was issued on 31.12.2019 under Annexure-7 to fill up the post in question, Petitioner challenging the advertisement is before this Court in the present Writ Petition.

4.4. It is accordingly contended that since the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19196 of 2009 has not yet been complied with and the advertisement under Annexure-7 was issued to fill up the post, such action of the Opposite Party-Corporation requires interference of this Court.

// 4 //

4.5. It is further contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order on 17.01.2020, inter alia observing that selection process pursuant to Annexure-7 shall remain subject to the result of the Writ petition. 4.6 Making all the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the prayer of the Petitioner to regularize him in terms of the order dtd.28.02.2012 under Annexure-3 has not yet been considered and prior to considering the same the advertisement under Annexure-7 has been issued, the same requires interference of this Court.

5. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that after disposal of the earlier Writ Petition vide order under Annexure-3 and dismissal of the review as well as the appeal by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Annexure-5, this Court while dealing with the issue in CONTC No.1360 of 2012, clearly observed that order dtd.28.02.2012 has been complied with. But while observing so, this Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to challenge order dtd.21.02.2019, so passed by the Corporation in compliance of order dtd.28.02.2012. Since Petitioner at no point of time has challenged order dtd.21.02.2019, if he is otherwise aggrieved, the present Writ Petition with the prayer as

// 5 //

made is not entertainable. It is accordingly contended that the Writ Petition is liable for dismissal.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner claiming regularization and other reliefs was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.19196 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide order the dtd.28.02.2012 under Annexure-3. Review filed by the Opposite Party-Corporation against such order was also rejected by this Court vide order dtd.26.04.2018 under Annexure-4. Not only that challenge made to the order passed in review before the Apex Court was also rejected vide order dtd.21.01.2019 under Annexure-5.

6.1. However, while dealing with the matter with regard to compliance of order dtd.28.02.2012, this Court in CONTC No.1360 of 2012 in its order dtd.22.02.2019 under Annexure-6, held that order dtd.28.02.2012 has been complied with vide order dtd.21.02.2019 and if Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he can challenge the same.

6.2. Since the present Writ Petition has been field without challenging order dtd. 21.02.2019 and a prayer has been made to regularize him in his services with quashing of the advertisement so issued under Annexure-7, this Court is of the view that the Writ

// 6 //

Petition with the prayer as made is not entertainable. It is open for the Petitioner to challenge order dtd.21.02.2019, in terms of the order dtd.22.02.2019 of this Court in CONTC No.1360 of 2012.

7. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat

Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Aug-2026 17:50:44 Signature Not Verified