JITEN KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. versus CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MAHANADI COALFILEDS LTD. & ORS.

JITEN KUMAR SAHOO & ORS. versus CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MAHANADI COALFILEDS LTD. & ORS.

Writ petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief from the High Court, given unexplained delay in impleading the appellants and acquiescence to their appointments and promotions; appointments had resulted in further appointments in appellants’ place, and upsetting this would affect parties not impleaded; High Court order is set aside on these equitable and procedural grounds.

Parties
Appellant: Jiten Kumar Sahoo & Ors.; Respondent: Chief General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfileds Ltd. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack Dated 02.05.2008 in OJC No. 10722 of 1997
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgment and order dated May 2, 2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack is set aside.
Legal Topics
Appointment in Government Undertaking, Preference to Apprentices, Discretionary Relief, Delay and Acquiescence
Service Law Appointment in Government Undertaking Preference to Apprentices Discretionary Relief Delay and Acquiescence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jiten Kumar Sahoo & Ors.

Appellant

Chief General Manager, Mahanadi Coalfileds Ltd. & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack Dated 02.05.2008 in OJC No. 10722 of 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the appointments of appellants and directing absorption of writ petitioners
  2. 2 Whether persons who had undergone apprenticeship with MCL could be given preference in appointments

Ratio Decidendi

Writ petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief from the High Court, given unexplained delay in impleading the appellants and acquiescence to their appointments and promotions; appointments had resulted in further appointments in appellants’ place, and upsetting this would affect parties not impleaded; High Court order is set aside on these equitable and procedural grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgment and order dated May 2, 2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack is set aside.

Orders

  • Parties shall bear their own costs.