SARADA PRASANNI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three writ petitions relate to opening of second 24 hours medicine store inside the campus of the District Headquarters Hospital at Jagatsinghpur. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10911 of 2008 and petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6892 of 2009 had submitted their applications in pursuance of the notice issued by the Chief District Medical Officer, Jagatsinghpur published in a news paper on 6.4.1998 whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15210 of 2008 had not filed any application in pursuance of such notice, but claims that had afresh notice been issued in terms of the 2004 guidelines, she could have applied for the same. For the above reason, all the three writ applications were heard together and are disposed of in this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the three writ applications are that the Chief District Medical Officer, Jagatsinghpur vide notice dated 6.4.1998 published in the daily "Prajatantra" invited applications from the candidates (ladies only) desirous of opening the second 24 hours medicine store inside the campus of District Headquarter Hospital at Jagatsinghpur. The intending applicants were required to file their applications on or before 30th April, 1998 and it was also stipulated in the said notice that the person selected to open the medicine store shall have to abide by the existing rules and regulations as has been fixed by the Government from time to time. In pursuance of the said notice, Sarada Prasanni Sahoo (petitioner in WPC No. 10911 of 2008) and Puspalata Swain (petitioner in WPC No. 6892 of 2009) submitted their applications. As it appears, a decision having been taken to select Mrs. Prativa Khandual, opposite party No. 4 in WPC No. 10911 of 2008, a writ petition vide OJC No. 12366 of 1998 was filed before this Court by Miss. Sarada Prasanni Sahoo. While admitting the said writ petition, as an interim measure, the Court directed that any approval made shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. As a result of the interim order, the State -opposite parties did not take any further step and the matter remained as such till the said writ petition was disposed of on 18.7.2005 on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the State. The order passed in the said writ petition is quoted below:

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions and opposite party no. 4 as stated above had submitted their applications in pursuance of the notice in Annexure -3. Annexure -4 shows the statement giving details particulars of the applicants and the names of all the three applicants appear in the list. When a decision was taken to select Mrs. Prativa Khandual -opposite party no.4, a writ application was filed before this Court by Miss. Sarada Prasanni Sahoo vide O.J.C. No. 12366 of 1998. When the case was taken up on 18.5.2007, it was contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that 1998 guidelines are no more in force and new guidelines have been issued in 2004 and the selection is to be made under the new guidelines of 2004. On the basis of such submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. Having said so before the Court, the State -opposite parties could not have considered the applications received in pursuance of Annexure -3 as those applications were required to be considered under the 1998 guidelines. By the time, the writ application was disposed of, 2004 guidelines had already come into force with the clarification in 2005.