TRIMUL KUMAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was appointed as executive officer without remuneration, under the scheme. By impugned order dtd. 25/1/2023 the Commissioner removed him. He draws attention to Sec. 42(8), 52, 54, 22 and 28 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. He seeks interference.

(2.) Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, statutory remedy of appeal is available to petitioner. The writ petition is not maintainable. He, however, prays for adjournment. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and also prays for adjournment. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears and submits, his clients are the sabayats. It is on their complaint impugned order was passed. His clients have not been made parties. He prays for adjournment for his clients to apply to intervene.

(3.) We are clear in our mind there is a scheme, pursuant to which petitioner was appointed as executive officer without remuneration. As such, he is not covered by sec. 52 or 54. We have perused impugned order. It does not disclose any of the reasons given in sec. 28(1).