The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12910 OF 2019 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Nayak Jyothi … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.D.K.Pani, Advocate -versus-
Legal Reasoning
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11194/2016 rejected the fresh panel list and directed the B.D.O. to appoint the 3rd candidate of the approved panel list prepared pursuant to the first advertisement on the ground that the validity of the panel list is for a period of one year. The said order, which is enclosed as
Arguments
For Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr.S.N.Das, A.S.C For Opposite Party No.6 : Mr. S. Palai, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 13.2.2023. Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has approached this Court with following prayer; Page 1 of 6 the Selection committee “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the order date 11.7.2019 passed by the Sub- Collector, Bhawanipatna directing the B.D.O., Narla to reject the fresh panel list prepared on 1.6.2019 by for engagement of Jogan Sahayak in Tulapada G.P. shall not be quashed/set aside and why the said panel list shall not be approved by the Sub- Collector and why the petitioner shall not be issued with engagement order as Jogana Sahayak for Tulapada G.P. and if the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show in sufficient or false cause make the Rule Nisi absolute and allow this Writ Petition with cost.” 2. The facts of the case are that as per advertisement published on 25th May, 2012 for engagement of Jogan Sahayak in respect of different Grama Panchayats in the district of Kalahandi, a selection process was initiated, and on 7th October, 2013, the B.D.O., Narla submitted the panel list of eligible candidates basing on which the Sub-Collector, Bhawanipatna approved the same and directed the B.D.O. to engage the selected candidates. It is stated that one Debi Prasad Senapati was the selected candidate for Talapada Grama Panchayat, who joined on 30th December, 2013. After working for nearly two years, the said Debi Prasad Senapati submitted his resignation on 10th August, 2015, which was accepted. The post having fallen vacant an advertisement was issued by the B.D.O., Narla on 26th May, 2018. The Petitioner applied in pursuance of W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 2 of 6 such advertisement. The panel list was prepared on the basis of the selection in which the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1. However, when the panel list was sent to the Sub-Collector for its approval, by order dated 11th July 2019, the Sub-Collector referring to an
Decision
Annexdure-11 to the Writ Petition, is impugned. 3. Heard Mr. D.K.Pani, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Mr. Pani has contended that the impugned order is completely illegal inasmuch as firstly, after completion of the selection process and engagement of the selected candidate in the concerned post the question of the panel list remaining valid does not arise. Secondly, this Court in W.P.(C) No.11194/2016 had not passed any order directing the authorities to revive the panel list already acted upon. W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 3 of 6 5. Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, submits that the Petitioner by being placed in the list does not acquire any vested right to be appointed. However, he fairly submits that there was no question of acting upon the panel list, which had already been acted upon. 6. After considering the rival submissions and having gone through the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the selection made in pursuance of the first advertisement issued on 25th May, 2012 came to an end on the engagement of the selected candidate. Nothing has been mentioned in the said advertisement or in the panel list prepared, copy of which is enclosed as Anenxure-3 series, regarding its validity after completion of the process of selection. It is also the settled position of law as held by the Apex Court in the case of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. Delson Davis; reported in AIR 2002 SC 332: (2002) 2 SCT 998 wherein it was observed as follows; “We fail to understand the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 4 of 6 appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma and another, 2002(2) SCT 234 (SC):JT 2001 (9) SC 266. Any temporary the interregnum will not entitle respondent No.1 to claim for permanent employment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1. arrangement made during 7. There is no dispute that the Petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement issued to fill up the vacancy occurring after resignation of the earlier incumbent. There is also no dispute that the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.1 of the panel list. 8. Thus the authorities could not have taken note of the earlier panel list, more so in purported compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11194/2016. In the said case, this Court, inter alia, had passed the following order; “In view of the law laid down by the apex Court, the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhawanipatna cannot sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and the matter the Sub-collector, Bhawaniapatna for reconsideration and passing a reasoned order within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of in accordance with law by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.” is remitted back this order to W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 5 of 6 9. From a conspectus of the analysis of the contentions and the position of law referred to hereinbefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order under Annexure-11 in rejecting the fresh panel list cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Resultantly, the order under Annexdure-11 is quashed. The Opposite Parties-authorities are directed to act upon the panel list under Annexure-10 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ………..…….……………. Judge Sashikanta Mishra, Ashok Kumar Behera W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 6 of 6 W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 7 of 6 W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 8 of 6 W.P.(C) No. 12910 of 2019 Page 9 of 6