Tamalamani Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Four ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. the legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be..........if any, and the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing, dispose of the same on its own merit by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date, the petitioner files the aforesaid papers. in case, the recommendation of candidates for engagement of volunteers are not yet approved, it shall not be approved until the collector dispose of this matter in terms of the aforesaid direction of this court.5. urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner asserts to have worked as a Non-Formal Instructor/Supervisor under the Non-Formal Education Scheme which has since been discontinued by the Government and in its place, a new scheme called E.G.S. and A.I.E. scheme has been introduced. Under the new scheme, according to the Government instruction/guidelines, the retrenched, N.F.E. Instructors/Supervisors are to be given preference in appointment/engagement of Education Volunteers (Swachhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks). But it is alleged that instead of following the instructions and giving preference to the petitioner, the opposite party-authorities under the Scheme have proceeded with the appointment/appointed persons of their choice, which is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The petitioner appears to have made a representation to the Collector of the District raising such grievances but it is yet to be attend to.

3. In such view of the matter, we feel it appropriate that the Collector should look into the matter and take an appropriate decision, if necessary, by issuing notices and hearing the parties. The petitioner shall file a fresh representation along with a certified copy of this order and a copy of this writ petition before the Collector preferably within a fortnight for consideration.

4. The writ petition is thus disposed of with the direction to the opposite party-Collector of the District to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the instructions/ guidelines governing the field after issuing notices to the selected candidate/appointee, if any, and the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing, dispose of the same on its own merit by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date, the petitioner files the aforesaid papers. In case, the recommendation of candidates for engagement of volunteers are not yet approved, it shall not be approved until the Collector dispose of this matter in terms of the aforesaid direction of this Court.

5. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.