AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to give appointment to the petitioner.
Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s name has been recommended by the state authorities vide order dated 22.04.2016 under Annexure-5 and his name finds place at Sl. No. 37 of the list indicated in the said letter itself. According to him, in spite of such recommendation, opposite parties 4 and 5 have not given any employment to the petitioner.
Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the State authorities vide letter dated 22.04.2016 under Annexure-5 has already recommended the case of the petitioner indicating his name at Sl. No. 37 of such list, therefore, it is open to the opposite parties 4 and 5 to take necessary step in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court is of the opinion that once the name of the petitioner has been recommended by the State authorities to opposite parties 4 and 5 vide letter dated 22.04.2016 under Annexure-5, it is incumbent upon the opposite parties 4 and 5 to take necessary step for giving employment to the petitioner.
In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed directing the opposite parties 4 and 5 to consider the case of the petitioner for giving him employment pursuant to the recommendation made under Annexure-5 dated 22.04.2016 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
……………………………