Padmasina Parida and another … v. ….. Mr. Anup Kumar Pattnaik, Advocate Opposite Party Mr. S.N. Nayak, ASC & Mr
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 19220 of 2013 Padmasina Parida and another ….. Petitioners State of Odisha and others Vs. ….. Mr. Anup Kumar Pattnaik, Advocate Opposite Party Mr. S.N. Nayak, ASC & Mr. S.K. Padhy, Advocate (O.Ps 4 to 7) CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 16.01.2024 Order No. 10. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. Anup Kumar Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr. S.K. Padhy, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 4 to 7. 3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos. 2710 (C) of 2012, 2709 (C) of 2012, 2712 (C) of 2012 and 2711 (C) of 2012, by which the State authorities were directed to recast the select list of candidates of Cuttack district pursuant to advertisement issued by the CDMO, Cuttack dated 25.07.2012 by de-listing selected candidates who had been selected on the basis of the concession allowed as per Annexure-2, i.e. letter No. 20972/H dated 8.8.2012 and publish the fresh list within a month of receipt of the order and appoint persons accordingly within fifteen days thereafter. 4. Mr. A.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the direction given by the Tribunal is erroneous one as the petitioners belong to Cuttack district and direction was given to Page 1 of 4 recast the select list of candidates of Cuttack district only, without interfering the select list in respect of other district. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that looking at the advertisement issued by the CDMO, Cuttack for walk in interview for the post of staff nurses, MPH (F), MPHW (M) under the control of CDMO, Cuttack, the petitioners along with others participated, but, subsequently, since it was found that there is mistake on the part of the authority in selecting the candidate, the tribunal passed the order for recast of the select list. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the tribunal. 6. Mr. S. K. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 4 to 7 contended that since the post relates to Cuttack district, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of other district. According to him, since the action taken by the authority while issuing the advertisement was overriding the resolution issued by His Excellency, the Governor, the same has been rightly interfered with by the Tribunal. Therefore, the said order need not be interfered with. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Chief District Medical Officer, Cuttack, the petitioners and others applied for the same. However, the same was challenged by some persons contending therein that letter dated 08.08.2012 under Annexure-2 issued by the Deputy Secretary cannot override the Resolution dated 19.04.2012 which has been issued by the order of His Excellency, the Governor. As such, pursuant to such letter dated 08.08.2012, unauthorized candidates were allowed to participate in the selection test in utter violation of the eligibility condition fixed in the Resolution dated 19.04.2012. It was alleged that the order dated 08.08.2012 has never been circulated adequately. It is also alleged that Page 2 of 4 unauthorized candidates participated in the recruitment test for which cause of action arose and they approached the tribunal challenging participation of ineligible and unauthorized candidates in the recruitment test. Therefore, it is contended that the letter dated 08.08.2012 under Annexure-2 to the Original Application cannot be regarded as the policy decision having been issued by a Deputy Secretary in the form of a letter without referring to the resolution of the Governor under Annexure-3 to the Original Application. Since the cases are confined to the recruitment of the candidates in Cuttack district pursuant to the advertisement for Cuttack district issued by the CDMO, Cuttack and as such, he has arrayed such candidates as parties while others are interveners during the hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the letter dated 08.08.2012 having been issued by Deputy Secretary, Health & Family Welfare in the form of a letter, the same cannot be treated as a policy decision and cannot alter the Resolution dated 19.04.2012 under Annexure-3 to the Original Application. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the recruitment undertaken on the basis of the letter dated 08.08.2012 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly quashed the same. The Tribunal further directed the State authorities to recast the select list of candidates of Cuttack district pursuant to advertisement issued by the CDMO, Cuttack dated 25.07.2012 delisting selected candidates who had been selected on the basis of the concession allowed as per Annexure-2, i.e. letter No. 20972/H dated 8.8.2012 and publish the fresh list within a month of receipt of these orders and appoint persons accordingly within fifteen days thereafter. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order of the learned Tribunal calling for interference by this Court at this stage. 9. The further contention raised that the direction was only Page 3 of 4 confined to Cuttack district and accordingly separate list was prepared in compliance to the direction of the tribunal, whereas in other districts of the state, the list has not been re-casted. Such an argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable in the eye of law, as because the CDMO by resorting to the letter issued by the Deputy Secretary dated 08.08.2012 since have proceeded with the recruitment by allowing ineligible and unauthorized candidates, therefore, the Tribunal has interfered with the same and directed for publication of the fresh list. Hence this Court does not find any force in such argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. 11. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Arun (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Jan-2024 10:41:29 Page 4 of 4