Harekrushna Mohapatra v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WPC(OAC) No.3348 of 2014 Harekrushna Mohapatra ....

Petitioner None -versusChairman, Odisha Public Service Commission & Others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. R.C. Pattnaik, ASC (S&ME) Mr. Souyam Prabhu Jena, counsel on behalf of Mr. Shashi Bhubsan Jena, Advocate for O.P.Nos.1&2.

CORAM:

JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No.

ORDER

12.04.2022 01.

1.

This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode. 2.

The Original Application No.3348 (C) of 2014 was filed before the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. After its abolition, the same has been transferred to this Court which is renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.3348 of 2014. 3.

The Petitioner has prayed to quash clause-4 of the advertisement No.03 of 2014-15 vide Annexure-2 in connection with recruitment to the post of Odisha Education Service-II (School Branch), Group-B. The Petitioners has prayed for the following reliefs:- "Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the original application be allowed; A n d

// 2 // (a) Clause-4 of the impugned advertisement No.3 of 2014-15 under Annexure-2 may be quashed and necessary direction may be given to the Respondents to fix 1st January, 2014 as eligibility date instead of 1st August, 2014 by making suitable amendment in the said Rules and the applicant may be allowed to participate the selection process pursuant to the advertisement No.3 of 2014-15; AND (b) Necessary direction may be issued to the O.P.S.C. to relax the defence service period of the applicant as per the decision of the O.P.S.C. taken in Advt-No-8 of 201213 and further be pleased to direction may be given to the G.A. dept to make necessary amendment in Orissa ExServiceman Rules 1985. (c) Any other order/orders for direction/directions be issued so as to give complete relief to the applicant." 4.

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner when the matter is called.

5.

Mr. Souyam Prabhu Jena, counsel on behalf of Mr. Shashi Bhusan Jena, counsel for the Opp.Party Nos. 1 and 2 submits that by efflux of time, the matter has been rendered infructuous. 6.

In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

(M.S. Raman) Judge Aks