DAYASAGAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dtd. 23/3/2022 (signed on 17/3/2022) passed by Chief District Veterinary Officer, Sambalpur (opposite party No. 2) in holding him ineligible for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner's father was working as Veterinary Trainer (VT) under Sub-divisional Veterinary Officer, Kuchinda (opposite Party No. 3) and died in harness on 3/11/2014. He left behind his widow, a daughter and a son (petitioner). A family being plunged in financial distress upon death of its only earning member, the widow wanted to apply for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but in a Medical Board conducted by the CDMO, Sambalpur on 4/3/2015, she was declared unfit to join in Government Job as she was suffering from DM and HTN with CKD. The petitioner therefore, applied before the Opposite Party No. 3 for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme which was forwarded to the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services (Opposite Party No.1) on 11/3/2015. Be it noted that the petitioner's mother and sister also submitted affidavit stating that they had no objection to the appointment of the petitioner under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. On 30/12/2017, the Opposite Party No. 3 issued a letter to Opposite Party No. 2 forwarding the relevant documents of the petitioners. Again on 28/8/2018, Opposite Party No. 3 resubmitted the documents to Opposite Party No. 2. On 6/11/2018, Opposite Party No. 2 called upon Opposite Party No. 3 to submit certain documents for finalisation of the matter. Pursuant to such letter, Opposite Party No. 3 resubmitted the entire documents to Opposite Party No. 2 along with letter dtd. 26/2/2019. On 12/6/2020, the Opposite Party No. 2 wrote to the petitioner asking him to resubmit his application along with necessary documents. The petitioner submitted the necessary documents by letter dtd. 7/1/2021. Ultimately by order dtd. 23/3/2022, the Opposite Party No. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner by holding that he had not secured the required points for being eligible for such appointment. Said order is enclosed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition and is impugned.

(3.) Heard Mr. G. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.