Rupabanta Luhar v. Dept. Revenue And Disastor Management Secy. Building
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.4384 of 2011 Rupabanta Luhar ....
Petitioner Mr. S. Satapathy, proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate State of Odisha & Another ....
Opposite Parties Mr. Shibani Shankar Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No.
ORDER
02.12.2022 03.
1. Challenging the order dated 11th November, 2011 passed by the Collector, Bargarh in respect of recruitment to the post of Revenue Inspector in the Office of Tahasilar of Bargarh district in response to Advertisement No. 1788/ESTT, dated 1st October, 2010, the Petitioner filed the Original Application before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal.
2. Learned Tribunal on 21st March, 2012 passed the following order:- "When this matter is taken up, Mr. Kanungo, learned Govt. Advocate submits that after selection test for the post of Revenue Inspector was over, merit list was published by the Department and on the basis of such merit list appointment order has been issued. Learned counsel has received parawise comments alongwith the merit list and also appointment orders etc.
An affidavit be filed on behalf of the Collector, Bargarh within two weeks.
Put up this matter two weeks after."
Accordingly, the counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondent, wherein at para-6 is read as under:-
// 2 // "That in reply to Para-6(7) of OA, it is submitted that the appointment has been made after publication of selection list which is equal to the number of vacancy for the post of R.I. and since no waiting list was prepared, the marks secured by different candidates is enclosed herewith for supply to the candidate (Annexure-D). The recruitment was made within the framework of rules."
3. Mr. S. Satapathy, proxy counsel on behalf of A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner at the time of hearing today submits that he has no instruction in the matter and prays for liberty to revive the petition in case cause of action still subsists.
4. In view of such submission, the writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the Petitioner to revive the writ petition within a period of 60 days, if cause of action still subsists. (M.S. Raman) Judge Aks