Orissa High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 30 To June 5, 2022

Nominal Index: 1. Dr. Pabitra Mohan Mallik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 93 2. Siba Prasanna Pathy v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 94 3. Pradip Kumar Sahoo v. Principal Secretary to Govt., School and Mass Education Deptt. & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 95 4. Mohammad Arif v. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 96 5. Bhuban Mohan Behera v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 97 6. Rajendra Mohanta v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 98 7. Satyananda Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 99 8. Sukuludei Santa v. Govt. of Odisha & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 100 Judgments/Orders Reported This Week: 1. Election Cannot Be Said To Have Commenced If Notified By A Body Not Empowered To Do So: Orissa High Court Case Title: Dr. Pabitra Mohan Mallik v. State of Odisha & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 93 The Court quashed a notification issued by an appealing body of the Odisha Medical Services Association ('OMSA'), which notified election for the Association. A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, while concluding that the notification was issued without any authority as it was done in violation of the body's constitution, observed, "This Bench is in respectful agreement with views expressed in Dillip Kumar Nayak (supra) on authority to conduct elections, as must be on basis of law so far as the association is concerned. Basis of law is its constitution. There is clear indication that the provisions therein were not complied with and followed in issuance of impugned notification." After going through the facts and laws, the Court noted that the process of election was commenced by a committee not duly constituted under the association's constitution. In the circumstances, the Court held, it cannot be said that the process of election had commenced. 2. No Absolute Rule That One Ad-Hoc Employee Can Never Be Replaced By Another Ad-Hoc Employee: Orissa HC Distinguishes SC Judgment Case Title: Siba Prasanna Pathy v. State of Odisha & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 94 The Orissa High Court held that there is no absolute rule that one ad-hoc/temporary employee can never be replaced with another ad-hoc employee. It further observed that an ad-hoc employee has no vested right to his post and he can anytime be replaced by any other ad-hoc employee, if found incompetent. In holding so, the Court apparently differed with the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court recently in Manish Gupta and Ors. v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and Ors. While dismissing a challenge against termination of a guest faculty, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed, "…there cannot be any absolute rule or principle that one ad hoc or temporary appointee can never be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary appointee. For example, if a temporary appointee in service is incompetent, can he not be allowed to replace with a competent or more competent person. This Court sees no reason why the competent person cannot be appointed in place of the incompetent person, even if both appointments are ad hoc or temporary appointees." Also Read: Appointment Of Guest Lecturers On Large Scale Without Regular Appointments Likely To Make 'Huge Dent' On Quality Of Education: Orissa High Court 3. "Improper To Keep Such Cases Pending For Years": Orissa High Court Orders Compassionate Appointment For Two After 7 Yrs Delay Case Title: Pradip Kumar Sahoo v. Principal Secretary to Govt., School and Mass Education Deptt. & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 95 The Orissa High Court held that it is highly improper to keep the cases of compassionate appointment pending for years, as the very purpose behind the same is to mitigate hardship of a bereaved family. While making orders for compassionate appointment in favour of two persons after seven years delay, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed, "It is stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress." 4. Orissa High Court Denies Bail To Accused Under PMLA Citing Flight Risk; Orders Conclusion Of Trial Within Six Months Case Title: Mohammad Arif v. Enforcement Directorate Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 96 The Orissa High Court denied bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) citing 'flight risk'. However, it ordered the Trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months. While dismissing the bail application, a Single Judge of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed, "Since the petitioner is ...

Orissa High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 30 To June 5, 2022

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags