AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 206 wordsBiraja Prasanna Satapathy, J
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the direction to make a fresh application for his appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide Annexure-2.
Mr. Pradhan-3, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Malayananda Sethy v. State of Orissa, Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022 disposed of on 20.05.2022 and in view of the decision, the impugned direction under Annexure-2 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned Addl. Government Advocate does not dispute the position.
In the above view of the matter, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition quash the direction at Annexure-2 and directs O.P. No.3 for consideration of the claim of the petitioner as made on 31.10.2017 in the light of the decision in the case of Malayananda Sethy (supra) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly..
……………………………