Ashok Kumar Panda Vs. State Project Director, O.P.E.P.A.-cum-director, Elementary Education and 3 ors.

Ashok Kumar Panda vs State Project Director, O.P.E.P.A.-cum-director, Elementary Education and 3 ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Orissa Decided Jan 04, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/528580

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/528580
Court: Orissa High Court
Judge: N. Prusty, J.
Decided On: Jan 04, 2008
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Panda

Advocate Mr. Barik

Respondent

State Project Director, O.P.E.P.A.-cum-director, Elementary Education and 3 ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Chandramani Jena and Ors. v. State of Orissa
Reported In: 105(2008)CLT544

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. .....certificate, his name was deleted from the select list.5. at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner belongs to kendrapara block, he soumendra nath das v. rushikulya gramya bank can apply in respect of any block throughout the state as per the decision in the case of chandramani jena and ors. v. state of orissa reported in 2007 (ii) olr 577 and his application cannot be rejected on the ground of residence.6. considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i am of the considered view that a person can apply for his engagement as sikhya sahayak in respect of anyone of the blocks throughout the state even though he does not belong to the said block. but nobody can be allowed to apply for his engagement in a particular block by utilizing a forged certificate showing him as a resident of that particular block, for which he submitted his application. as such, the ratio of the decision in the case of chandramani jena (supra) cannot be applied to this case, in the facts and circumstances narrated above.7. in view of the above, i do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N. Prusty, J.

1. The Petitioner, who was one of the applicants for his engagement as Sikhya Sahayak under Pattamundai Block in the district of Kendrapara, has filed this Writ Petition for a direction to the Opposite Parties to reconsider his case for his engagement as Sikhya Sahayak as per the Additional provisional merit list (Annexure-4).

2. Heard Mr. Barik, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H.P. Rath, Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that even though the Petitioner belongs to Kendrapara Block, he had applied to be engaged as Sikhya Sahayak in respect of the vacancy in Pattamundai Block and for such engagement he had filed a resident certificate as a resident of Pattamundai Block. Even though his name finds place in the additional provisional merit list at SI. No. 2, he has not been given engagement and persons securing less marks than him have been engaged. Learned Counsel submits that his case is completely governed by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Chandramani Jena and Ors. v. State of Orissa reported in 2007 (II) OLR 577.

4. Mr. Rath, Learned Standing Counsel submits that the principles decided in the case of Chandramani Jena and Ors. v. State of Orissa reported in 2007 (II) OLR 577, cannot be made applicable to this case, since in the said case this Court has observed that none of the applicants can be discriminated on the ground of residence, but in the instant case even though the Petitioner belongs to Kendrapara Block, he has fraudulently obtained resident certificate in respect of Pattamundai Block and by utilizing that forged certificate he has applied for the post and accordingly his name finds place at SI. No. 2 of the aforesaid Additional provisional merit list. When it was detected that even though the Petitioner belongs to Kendrapara Block and he has applied to be engaged as Sikhya Sahayak in Pattamundai Block by utilizing that forged certificate, his name was deleted from the select list.

5. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that even though the Petitioner belongs to Kendrapara Block, he Soumendra Nath Das v. Rushikulya Gramya Bank can apply in respect of any Block throughout the State as per the decision in the case of Chandramani Jena and Ors. v. State of Orissa reported in 2007 (II) OLR 577 and his application cannot be rejected on the ground of residence.

6. Considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the considered view that a person can apply for his engagement as Sikhya Sahayak in respect of anyone of the Blocks throughout the State even though he does not belong to the said Block. But nobody can be allowed to apply for his engagement in a particular Block by utilizing a forged certificate showing him as a resident of that particular Block, for which he submitted his application. As such, the ratio of the decision in the case of Chandramani Jena (supra) cannot be applied to this case, in the facts and circumstances narrated above.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Orissa · 2008 Same Parties Ashok Kumar Panda vs State Project Director, O.P.E.P.A.-cum-d... Same Subject Service Same Judge N. Prusty, J.

Service