STATE OF ODISHA Vs. BIJAYA KUMAR HANS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the Court is informed that that the pleadings were complete in the writ petition, it is seen that the impugned order has been passed without discussing the pleadings and noticing that the facts of the case on hand which involved regularization of Junior Stenographer in Vigilance Organization was very different from the case concerning regularization of Data Entry Operators (DEOs), which was a subject matter of W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020 (Patitapaban Dutta Dash v. State of Odisha), which had been disposed of by judgment dtd. 9/9/2021.

(2.) Although in para 3 of the impugned judgment it is noted that "it is agreed by learned counsel for the parties....". From what stated in the memorandum of appeal and in the counter affidavit itself, it is plain that the facts of the present case are different and it could not have gone on a concession by counsel for the Appellant.

(3.) For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside and W.P.(C) No.19348 of 2020 is restored to the file of learned Single Judge where it will be listed for hearing on 24/7/2023. The learned Single Judge will then proceed in accordance with law and endeavour to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, the status quo shall be maintained by the parties.