Orissa High Court
WP(C)/823/2013 of PRADEEP KUMAR SAHOO Vs STATE and OTHERS on 31 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.823 of 2013 CNR No. ODHC010210982013 Pradeep Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Prashanta Kumar Barik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, AGA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.823 of 2013
CNR No. ODHC010210982013
Pradeep Kumar Sahoo
….
Petitioner
Mr. Prashanta Kumar Barik, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
31.07.2026
03.
1. Praying for a direction to the opposite parties to consider and treat the petitioner as contractual Assistant Training Officer (ATO) in Barbil Industrial Training Institution and Part Time Guest Instructor (PTGI) and allow him to continue in his present post, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. On perusal of record, this Court vide order dated 30th January, 2013 in Division Bench while issuing notice to the opposite parties passed an interim order, which reads as under:- “*** As an interim measure, this Court directs that status quo as on today in respect of the service of the petitioner shall be maintained by the parties, till the next date.”
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Office note revealed that notice could not be issued to the opposite parties due to non-filing of requisites.
4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by filing a memo in Court today, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition, as it has become infructuous, to which learned Additional Government Advocate has raised no objection. The said memo is taken on record.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (M.S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Jul-2026 17:34:24 Signature Not Verified