SITAKANTA SAI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

(2.) Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

(3.) It is submitted that vide order dtd. 9/6/2014 under Annexure-3, the claim of the petitioner along with others were recommended for their appointment under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. It is submitted that person placed at Sl. No.26 of the said order was appointed on regular basis, which is evident from Annexure-4. But the Petitioner was not only appointed subsequent to such appointment, but that too on contractual basis vide order dtd.9/6/2014 under Annexure-3. Accordingly, it is contended that Petitioner is entitled for his appointment on regular basis from the date of his appointment as issued under Annexure-3.