January to March 2013 for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

CourtNews19SUBASH CHANDRA PANDA-V- STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.24213 OF 2011 (Dt.13.12.2012)SERVICE – Dismissal of petitioner – Petitioner was neither allowed to engage an advocate todefend his case nor he was permitted to Cross-examine the witnesses examined by the corporation –Violation of principles of natural justice – Enquiry report submitted by the authority could not have beenaccepted by the Disciplinary authority but the same was accepted and second show cause notice wasissued – Past service record of the petitioner was not taken into consideration while imposing majorpunishment – Held, punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved – Impugnedorder of removal of the petitioner from service is quashed as the same suffers from doctrine of proportionality.(V. Gopala Gowda, CJ & B. N. Mahapatra, J.)RAJASHREE NAYAK-V- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.W.P.(C) NO.16218 OF 2012 (Dt.30.11.2012)EDUCATION – Admission into MBBS Course 2012 - Held, prioritization procedure adopted by O.P.2& 3 for admission, ignoring the merit list is illegal and violative of the rules of merit.In this Case out of total seats of 450 in Government Colleges 3% reserved for Ex-service mencategory (in short ESM Category ) which comes to 14 – Petitioner secured 15 rank under ESM category– Candidates placed at Sl.Nos.1,2 & 3 took admission under General category and Sl.No.14 was foundunsuitable to take admission so petitioners’ position comes to Sl.No.11 in ESM Category -When Opp.Partiesallowed candidates to take admission whose positions were below the rank of the petitioner on the basisof prioritization procedure ignoring the case of the petitioner, he filed this writ petition - Held, Directionissued to Op.2 & 3 to give admission to the petitioner in MBBS course as per her rank under ESM quota.( Sanju Panda, J.)SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 – Ss.31, 34.DILLIP KUMAR SAHOO-V- MALATI ROUT & ORS.R.S.A. NO.153 OF 2010 (Dt.14.12.2012)Registered document – Presumption is, it is validly executed and prima facie it is valid in law –Onus lies on the person who wants to rebut such presumption.In this case plaintiffs plead that fraud practiced on them while executing General Power of AttorneyExt-1 in favour of Defendant No.2 and the impugned sale deeds Exts-B & C executed by Defendant No.2in favour of Defendant No.1 are the outcome of such fraud – No prayer in the suit to declare G.P.A. Ext.1void – Both the Courts below failed to take note of the evidence of plaintiff No.3, examined as P.W.1, thatthey were present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on the date of sale of the suit land and raised noobjection against such registration – Held, G.P.A. Ext.1 is a valid document so also the sale deeds Exts.B & C – Defendant No.1 has acquired title over the suit property on the strength of the above sale deedsas true owner and acquired right to enforce the right, title and interest over the suit property.( B. K. Patel, J.)