BIRANCHI NARAYAN MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is before this Court by filing a writ petition on 05.11.2012 seeking for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to consider the petitioner under in-service category merit list to prepare as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for admission into PG Medical Course for the year 2012 and accordingly counselling be made to him to fill up the seat of in-service candidate of PG Medical Course.

(2.) Strong reliance is placed by Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate upon the judgment dated 11.04.2012 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 78 of 2012, though he is not a party to the said proceeding in view of the aforesaid judgment the direction made to the authorities to treat the doctors who have been working in Public Sector Undertaking Hospitals both run by the Central Government and the State Government has to be treated as in-service candidates and they are entitled to be treated as in-service candidates and the merit list to be prepared and admit him to the PG Medical Course for the academic year 2012. It is stated by Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate that the said judgment is not challenged by anybody and thereby it has attained finality. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to avail the said benefit to be considered as in-service candidate in the merit list that is required to be prepared in terms of the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7724 of 2012. The said petition is opposed by the in-service candidates, Bhakta Charan Sahoo, son of Alekha Chandra Sahoo by filing affidavit and Dr. Mamata Samal, wife of Dillip Kumar Mallick by filing misc. case in the Court today, who are already in the in-service merit list of 2012 so also the in-service candidates of 2011 in Misc. Case No. 18863 of 2012 also opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

(3.) In our considered view, having regard to the prayer made by the petitioner, whose prayer is opposed by both the in-service candidates of 2012 and 2011, are necessary and proper parties to the proceeding; therefore they are allowed to come on record and petitioner's counsel is directed to serve copies of the writ petitions on their counsel and to amend the cause title of the brief suitably.