8292 Dt. 10.06.2026
Showing posts with label Court Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court Order. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 June 2026
Wednesday, 6 May 2026
Judgement on inter-se-seniority of OAS officers
Petitioners : Direct recruited OAS (JB) Officers appointed on 4th March, 2016
Opposite Party : ORS Officers promoted to OAS(JB) vide Notification Dt.17.10.2015
Hon'ble Court's Judgement : Seniority to be decided based on date of joining. Hence rejected the Petitioners appeal. Click here to view/download.PDF
Thursday, 29 January 2026
Promotion of reserved candidates against UR Vacancy : Judgement Copy
Date of Hearing:23.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:22.01.2026
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
...... x x x x x
9.4. Since in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of M. Nagraj and Jarnail Singh, no
such quantifiable data has yet been collected and the
impugned clarification has been issued by Opp. Party
No.3 contrary to the provisions contained under Rule-6
of the 1992 Rules as well as Art-154 and 162 of the
Constitution of India, it is the view of this Court that
the impugned clarification issued on 06.05.2024,
directed to be followed in communication dated
27.02.2025 basing on the clarification issued by the Law Department on 27.02.2024, are not sustainable in
the eye of law and stand quashed. Consequentially, any
action taken basing on such clarification issued on
06.05.2024 and 27.02.2025 are also not sustainable in
the eye of law and stand quashed. The decisions
rendered by this Court in the case of Lalit Kumar
Nayak as well as Litu Behera on the face of the
provision contained under Art-16(4-A) of the
Constitution of India and the decision in the case of M.
Nagraj as well as Jarnail Singh as per the considered
view of this Court are judgments per-incuriam.
9.5. Therefore, this Court while quashing clarification
dtd.06.05.2024 and communication dtd.27.02.2025 so
issued by Opp. Party No.3 as well as consequential
action taken thereof by various departments of the
State, direct the concerned departments in the present
batch of Writ Petitions to follow the provisions
contained under Rule-3-A of the Amendment Rules,
2022 and so also the provision contained under Art16(4-A) of the Constitution of India read with the decision in the case of M. Nagraj and Jarnail Singh
with regard to promotion of SC & ST candidates.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, all
the Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Saturday, 24 January 2026
Sunday, 4 May 2025
Wednesday, 19 March 2025
Friday, 25 October 2024
Monday, 19 August 2024
Reserved candidates can be appointed/ promoted against UR Vacancy
WP(C) No.12516 of 2020
Lalit Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha
--------
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard the Learned Counsels for both parties and meticulously examined the documents submitted before this Court. As per Rule 11 of the Orissa District Revenue Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, promotions to Revenue Inspectors are based on merit, suitability, and seniority among Amins and Assistant Revenue Inspectors. They need to have at least five years of service and have passed required departmental exams/tests.
6. Furthermore, the Orissa Civil Services (Criteria For Promotion) Rules, 1992 state that promotions are based on merit, suitability, and seniority, with the select list arranged by seniority. The 2022 amendment clarifies that SC/ST candidates promoted or recruited on their merit and placed above unreserved candidates will fill unreserved vacancies and not be counted towards the reserved quota.
7. Now, let us peruse the relevant judicial precedents that elucidate this issue. In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India1 the Apex Court, while referencing the intent of Article 16(4) of the Constitution opined that “In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.”
8. In the case of R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab2, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court addressed the issue of appointments, promotions, and the use of roster points in relation to reservations. It held in para 5 as under:
“When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserve posts. On the other hand, the reserve category candidates
can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the Services under the State.”
9. Similarly, in the case of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan3, the Apex Court has held that when calculating the number of posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, candidates from these categories who are selected or promoted based on merit (rather than reservation rules) should not be counted as reserved category candidates.
10. This jurisprudential position has been emphatically reinforced by the Allahabad High Court in the case of UP Power Corporation Limited v. Nitin Kumar4 where it held that “..where a candidate is meritorious enough to be placed within the zone of selected candidates independent of any claim of reservation and purely on the basis of the merit of the candidate, the candidate ought not to be relegated to a seat against the reserved category. The simple reason for this principle is that reservation is a process by which a certain number of posts or seats is carved out for stipulated categories such as OBC, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Unreserved seats do not constitute a
reservation for candidates belonging to categories other than the reserved categories. An unreserved post or seat is one in which every individual irrespective of the category to which the person belongs can compete in open merit..”
11. Likewise, in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.5, the Allahabad High Court, while deliberating on the issue of 'open competition with general candidates,' articulated its position in paragraph 53 as follows:
“53..In a selection which can be termed as open competition with general category candidates, the candidature of the reserved category candidates as well as the general category candidates is to be tested on the same merit and if in that case a reserved category candidate succeeds in the open competition with general category candidates, he would be placed amongst the general category candidates..”
12. Thus, no law mandates reservation for general category candidates in public employment. Consequently, the issue of reserved category candidates occupying or being selected for the general seats does not arise. Since the concept of reservation does not apply to general category candidates/ the notion of them having “fixed seats” is inherently flawed.
13. Furthermore, numerous judgments have consistently affirmed that if an individual meets the prescribed merit criteria, there is no justification for preventing them from being recruited or promoted to unreserved positions. The relaxations provided are solely to ensure that reserved category candidates have a level playing field, which aligns with the intent of Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution.
14. Upon scrutinizing the aforementioned facts in conjunction with the judicial precedents, it can be conclusively inferred that the clarification issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha, on 11.01.2019 is devoid of legal soundness.
15. The denial of promotion on the premise that there exists an "excess number of reserved category candidates" represents a profoundly erroneous interpretation of the prevailing laws and inflicts egregious injustice upon meritorious candidates from the reserved category.
16. In the present case, the Petitioner, having completed five years of service as an Amin and successfully passed the requisite departmental examination in accordance with ODRS Rules, is unequivocally eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector. Denying him promotion solely on the basis of his reserved category status constitutes a violation of his right to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the of the Constitution India.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the concerned Authority is hereby directed to re-evaluate their promotion policies and promulgate appropriate rules to ensure the advancement of meritorious candidates, irrespective of their reservation status within one month.
18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Saturday, 27 April 2024
Vacation of Campus Medicine Stores from public health institutions : High Court upheld the decision
Certain Campus Medicine Stores had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa assailing the communication of Health & FW Department dated 27.02.2015, wherein it was directed that no extension of licence of on-campus medical stores was to be permitted and further, no new campus medical stores were to be opened.
Despite expiry of their licence agreements, these Campus Medicine Stores had been running their businesses pursuant to interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
The Hon'ble High Court after adjudicating over the matters, has vide final order and judgment dated 19.04.2024 dismissed all the aforementioned Writ Petitions. The Hon'ble Court has further been pleased to vacate all interim orders passed in the matters. (Order dated 19.04.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court. PDF)
In light of the aforesaid development, Health Department has instructed Superintendent / Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH, Berhampur/ Director, VIMSAR, Burla and CDM & PHOs of all Districts to immediately issue 'vacation notices' to the Campus Medicine Shops affording therein a time period of 15 days for vacating the premises and also to take all possible steps in accordance with law to recover possession of the premises immediately after expiry of the 15 days period.
Letter No. 10532/H&FW, Dt.25.04.2024
Dt.19.04.2024
Tuesday, 12 March 2024
Saturday, 20 January 2024
ASO Recruitment: Order Copy of SLP filed in Supreme Court
Extract of Order Dt.19.01.2024
In the meantime, selection and appointment if any, shall be subject to final outcome of this Special Leave Petition and the same be notified to the candidates by the Odisha Public Service Commission.
ଅର୍ଥାତ୍ ଚୟନ ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ଓ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଦେବା ଉପରେ କୌଣସି ରହିତାଦେଶ ନାହିଁ କିନ୍ତୁ ପ୍ରତ୍ୟେକ ପରୀକ୍ଷାର୍ଥୀ ଙ୍କ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପତ୍ରରେ ଉପରୋକ୍ତ SLP ର ଚୂଡାନ୍ତ ରାୟକୁ ସର୍ତ୍ତ ରଖାଯିବାକୁ OPSC କୁ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶ ଅଛି।
Friday, 19 January 2024
ASO Recruitment Case reached Supreme Court: Notice to State & OPSC
ଗୋଟିଏ ପଟେ ଲୋକସେବା ଭବନରେ ଚୂଡାନ୍ତ ଚୟନ ତାଲିକାଭୁକ୍ତ ASO ପରୀକ୍ଷାର୍ଥୀ ମାନଙ୍କର Original Documents ଯାଞ୍ଚ ଚାଲିଥିବା ବେଳେ ମାମଲା ସୁପ୍ରିମକୋର୍ଟ ରେ ପହଞ୍ଚିଛି।
Friday, 22 December 2023
ASO Recruitment Court Case : Single Judge Order quashed, OPSC allowed to continue recruitment process
ASO COURT CASE
DIVISION BENCH JUDGEMENT
22.12.2023
22.12.2023
ଜଣିକିଆ ଖଣ୍ଡପୀଠଙ୍କ ତା୧୯.୦୫.୨୦୨୩ରିଖ ରାୟକୁ ଖାରଜ କଲେ ଡିଭିଜନ ବେଞ୍ଚ।
- ଚୟନ ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ଯେଉଁଠାରେ ବନ୍ଦ ଥିଲା ସେଇଥରୁ ଚାଲୁ ରଖିବାକୁ OPSC କୁ ଅନୁମତି ।
- ୧୧୦୪ ଜଣଙ୍କ ମେରିଟ୍ ଲିଷ୍ଟ କାଏମ ରଖିଲେ ହାଇକୋର୍ଟ।
- ଚୁଡ଼ାନ୍ତ ୭୯୬ ତାଲିକା ଖୁବ୍ ଶୀଘ୍ର।
# ସୂଚନାଯୋଗ୍ୟ ୭୯୬ ପଦବୀ ପାଇଁ ହୋଇଥିବା ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାରେ ୧୧୦୪ ଜଣ ପ୍ରାର୍ଥୀ ଙ୍କୁ ସର୍ଟଲିଷ୍ଟ କରାଯାଇ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ନଥିପତ୍ର ଯାଞ୍ଚ ସହିତ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟର ଦକ୍ଷତା ପରୀକ୍ଷା ମଧ୍ୟ କରାଯାଇ ସାରିଛି।
କେବଳ ହାଇକୋର୍ଟଙ୍କ ରହିତାଦେଶ ପାଇଁ ଚୂଡାନ୍ତ ତାଲିକା ପ୍ରକାଶ କରାଯାଇନଥିଲା । ତେଣୁ ବହୁତ ଶୀଘ୍ର ( ଆଶା କରାଯାଏ ଆସନ୍ତା ୭ ଦିନ ମଧ୍ୟରେ) ଚୂଡାନ୍ତ ତାଲିକା ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇବା ସହିତ ନୂତନ ବର୍ଷରେ ସଚିବାଳୟରେ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ମଧ୍ୟ ମିଲିଯିବାର ସମ୍ଭାବନା ଅଛି ।
## Judgement copy
 |
Thursday, 21 December 2023
ASO Recruitment: JUDGEMENT on 22nd December
ଆସନ୍ତା କାଲି ତା ୨୨.୧୨.୨୦୨୩ ରିଖ (ଶୁକ୍ରବାର) ଦିନ ASO Recruitment ର ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ ରାୟ ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇବାକୁ ଯାଉଛି। କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକାରୀ ମୁଖ୍ୟ ବିଚାରପତି ଜଷ୍ଟିସ ବିଦ୍ୟୁତ ରଞ୍ଜନ ଷଡ଼ଙ୍ଗୀ ଓ ଜଷ୍ଟିସ ମୁରହରି ଶ୍ରୀ ରମଣଙ୍କୁ ନେଇ ଗଠିତ ଡିଭିଜନ ବେଞ୍ଚ ଏହି ରାୟ ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିବେ ।
Division Bench Judgement
on Dt.22.12.2023
------
Tuesday, 19 December 2023
Secretariat ASO Recruitment : Court Case Updates
ଓଡ଼ିଶା ରାଜ୍ୟ ସଚିବାଳୟର ଏ.ଏସ୍.ଓ. ପରୀକ୍ଷା ୨୦୨୧ର ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ଗତ ୩୧.୧୨.୨୦୨୧ ତାରିଖରେ ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇଥିଲା । ଆଉ ମାତ୍ର ୧୨ ଦିନ ପରେ ଦୁଇ ବର୍ଷ ପୂରିବ । ଅଥଚ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ଏବେ ବି ଅସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ହୋଇ ପଡ଼ିରହିଛି । ଉକ୍ତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ଏବେ ଉଚ୍ଚ ନ୍ୟାୟାଳୟର ବିଚାରାଧୀନ ଅଛି । ଶୁଣାଣି ସାରିଥିବା ବେଳେ ରାୟ ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ ଅଛି ।
A. What is the status of recruitment now ?
ତା ୨୭।୦୮।୨୦୨୨ ରିଖ ଦିନ ୧,୪୮,୮୮୮ ଜଣ ପରୀକ୍ଷାର୍ଥୀ ଲିଖିତ ପରୀକ୍ଷା ଦେଇଥିଲା ବେଳେ ୧୧୦୪ ଜଣ ପ୍ରାର୍ଥୀଙ୍କୁ ଚୟନ କରାଯାଇ ସେମାନଙ୍କର ନଥିପତ୍ର ଯାଞ୍ଚ ୧୪-୧୮ ନଭେମ୍ବର, ୨୦୨୨ ମଧ୍ୟରେ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା । ତା ୦୪।୧୨।୨୦୨୨ ରିଖ ଦିନ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟର ଦକ୍ଷତା ପରୀକ୍ଷା ମଧ୍ୟ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା । ତେବେ ଚୂଡାନ୍ତ ୭୯୬ ଜଣଙ୍କ ତାଲିକା ପ୍ରକାଶନ ଉପରେ ମାନ୍ୟବର ଉଚ୍ଚ ନ୍ୟାୟାଳୟ ଙ୍କର ରହିତାଦେଶ ରହିଛି ।
B. Why such Court Case ?
ଓପିଏସସି ଗତ ୩ଟି ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାରେ ଲିଖିତ ପରୀକ୍ଷାର ମୋଟ ମାର୍କ (Agrregate) ଭିତ୍ତିରେ ଚୁଡ଼ାନ୍ତ ତାଲିକା ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିଥିଲା ବେଳେ ଏଥର ବିଷୟ ଭିତ୍ତିକ (Sectional Cut Off) ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ଆଧାରରେ ଚୟନ କରାଯାଇଛି ।
ଗୋଟିଏ ପଟରେ ତାଲିକାରେ ସ୍ଥାନ ପାଇପାରି ନଥିବା ପିଲା Recruitment Rule-6 ପାଳନ ହୋଇନଥିବା ଯୁକ୍ତି କରୁଥିବାବଳେ ଓପିଏସସି ତରଫରୁ ନିଜେ ଚୟନ କରିବାର ପଦ୍ଧତି ନିର୍ଣ୍ଣୟ କରିପାରିବାର କ୍ଷମତା ଥିବା କଥା କହୁଛି।
C. Why OPSC (with vast experience of recruitment) dragged into litigation ?
ଯଦିଓ ଓପିଏସସିର ବହୁତ୍ ସମୟ ଧରି ସଚିବାଳୟ କ୍ୟାଡ଼ର ପଦବୀ ପୂରଣ ପାଇଁ ଅଭିଜ୍ଞତା ଅଛି, କିନ୍ତୁ ପ୍ରଥମ ଥର ପାଇଁ ଏଥର ଆଲରାଉଣ୍ଡର ସ୍ତରୀୟ ପିଲା ବାଛିବା ପାଇଁ ନିଷ୍ପତ୍ତି ନେଇଥିଲା । ସବୁ ବିଷୟରେ ସର୍ବନିମ୍ନ ଯୋଗ୍ୟତା ଭିତ୍ତିକ ନମ୍ବର ରଖିଥିବା ଆଧାରରେ ୨୪୦୮ ଜଣ ପିଲା ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହୋଇଥିଲେ ।ତେଣୁ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟାପ୍ତ ପିଲା ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହେଉଥିବାରୁ ମୋଟ ପଦବୀର ୧.୫ ଗୁଣ ଅର୍ଥାତ୍ ୧୧୦୪ ଜଣଙ୍କର ତାଲିକା ପ୍ରକାଶ କରିଥିଲା।କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାରେ ମୋଟ ମାର୍କ ଭିତ୍ତିରେ ଅଧିକ ମାର୍କ ରଖିଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ କୌଣସି ଗୋଟିଏ ପେପର ରେ ଖରାପ ପ୍ରଦର୍ଶନ ଯୋଗୁ କିଛି ପିଲା ଏହି ତାଲିକାରୁ ବାଦ୍ ପଡ଼ିଥିଲେ । ତେଣୁ ବିନା ସୂଚନାରେ ଏଭଳି ପଦ୍ଧତି ଆପଣାଇଥିବାରୁ ଅଦାଲତରେ ମାମଲା ଦାୟର କରାଯାଇଛି ।
D) What are the solutions ?
ଯେହେତୁ ମାମଲା ଏବେ ଅଦାଲତରେ ଅଛି, ରାୟ ନଆସିବା ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ କେହି କିଛି କରିପାରିବେ ନାହିଁ।
E) Who are to be affected by the judgement ?
ଯଦି ରାୟ ଓପିଏସସି ସପକ୍ଷରେ ଗଲା ତେବେ କେସ ଲଢ଼ୁଥିବା ପିଲାମାନଙ୍କର ମୋଟ ମାର୍କ ଅଧିକ ଥାଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଚୟନ ରୁ ବାଦ୍ ପଡ଼ିବେ । ଆଉ ଯଦି ରାୟ ଓପିଏସସି ବିପକ୍ଷରେ ଗଲା ତେବେ ଚୟନ ହୋଇଥିବା ୧୧୦୪ ରୁ କିଛି ପିଲା ବାଦ୍ ପଡି ନୂଆ କିଛି ଯୋଗ ହୋଇପାରନ୍ତି ।
F) What is the rule for selection ?
ମୁଖ୍ୟତଃ ଦୁଇଟି କଥା ଉପରେ ଯୁକ୍ତି କରାଯାଉଛି । ଗୋଟିଏ ହେଲା Recruitment Rule 6 ଯେଉଁଥିରେ ଲିଖିତ ପରୀକ୍ଷାର୍ଥୀ ଙ୍କ ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ସର୍ଟ ଲିଷ୍ଟ ପାଇଁ ସେମିତି କିଛି ନିୟମ ଉଲ୍ଲେଖ ନାହିଁ ।
G) What are the possibilities of action from either side after judgement
ନ୍ୟାୟାଳୟର ଦ୍ଵାର ସମସ୍ତଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଉନ୍ମୁକ୍ତ । ରାୟ ଆସିବା ପରେ ଆଉ ଗୋଟିଏ ମାତ୍ର ସୁଯୋଗ ହେଲା ମାନ୍ୟବର ସର୍ବୋଚ୍ଚ ନ୍ୟାୟାଳୟ । କିନ୍ତୁ ମାମଲାର ରାୟ ଯାହା ବିପକ୍ଷରେ ଯିବ, ସେମାନେ ସୁପ୍ରିମ କୋର୍ଟଙ୍କ ଦ୍ବାରସ୍ଥ ହେବେ କି ନାହିଁ ତାହା ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଉପରେ ନିର୍ଭର କରେ ।
H) When next ASO Recruitment ?
ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର ଖାଲି ପଦବୀ ୭୯୬ କୁ ବାଦ୍ ଦେଇ ଆସନ୍ତା ବର୍ଷରେ ଅବସର ଜନିତ ଖାଲି ପଦବୀକୁ ହିସାବ କଲେ ପ୍ରାୟ ୩୦୦ ରୁ ଅଧିକ ASO ପଦବୀ ପାଇଁ ୨୦୨୪ ଡିସେମ୍ବର ସୁଦ୍ଧା ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ବାହାର କରାଯାଇପାରିବ । କିନ୍ତୁ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନର କୋର୍ଟ କେସ ଫାଇସାଲା ନହେବା ଯାଏଁ ନୂଆ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ଆଶା କ୍ଷୀଣ।
ଏହା ପଛରେ ଆଉ ଗୋଟିଏ କାରଣ ଯେ, ୨୦୧୧ (ରେଗୁଲାର ବ୍ୟାଚ) ଓ ୨୦୧୫ (ସ୍ଵତନ୍ତ୍ର ବ୍ୟାଚ୍) ଉଭୟ ୨୦୧୬ ରେ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପାଇଥିବାରୁ ଗ୍ରେଡେଶନ ତାଲିକାରେ ଶୀର୍ଷ ରେ ରହିବା ପାଇଁ ମାମଲା ଅଦାଲତଙ୍କ ନିକଟରେ ବିଚାରାଧୀନ ଅଛି । ତେଣୁ ୨୦୨୧ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ନସରିବା ଯାଏଁ ନୂଆ ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ବାହାରି ନପାରେ ।
Monday, 11 December 2023
ASO Recruitment Court Case : Order Reserved
ସଚିବାଳୟ ଏଏସଓ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ସମ୍ପର୍କିତ ମାମଲାରେ ଶୁକ୍ରବାର (୮ ଡିସେମ୍ବର) ଦିନ ଦୁଇଘଣ୍ଟାର ଶୁଣାଣି ପରେ ଆଜି (୧୧ ଡିସେମ୍ବର) ପୁଣି ପ୍ରାୟ ୨ ଘଣ୍ଟା ୪୫ ମିନିଟ ର ଶୁଣାଣି ହୋଇଥିଲା । ଉଭୟ ପକ୍ଷର ଜବାବ ସୁଆଲ ସହିତ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଦିଗ ଉପରେ ଯୁକ୍ତି ଉପସ୍ଥାପନା କରାଯିବା ପରେ ମାନ୍ୟବର ଅଦାଲତ ନିଜର ରାୟକୁ ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ ରଖିଛନ୍ତି ।
Friday, 8 December 2023
ASO Recruitment Court Case : Hearing will be continued on 11th Dec
ବହୁତ ଦିନର ଅପେକ୍ଷା ପରେ ଆଜି (୦୮-୧୨-୨୦୨୩) ସଚିବାଳୟ ଏଏସ୍ଓ ପରୀକ୍ଷା ମାମଲାର ଶୁଣାଣି ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଛି । ଆଜି ପ୍ରାୟ ଦୁଇ ଘଣ୍ଟାର ଶୁଣାଣି ହୋଇଥିଲା ବେଳେ, ଆସନ୍ତା ସୋମବାର (୧୧-୧୨-୨୦୨୩) ମଧ୍ୟ ଏହା ଜାରି ରହିବ ।
Thursday, 7 December 2023
Thursday, 30 November 2023
ASO Court Case : Final hearing on 8th December
30.11.2023 : Final hearing on ASO Court Case has been scheduled on 8th December.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)