The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.733 of 2018 Soumya Ranjan Behera …. Petitioner Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.01.2024 Order No 14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the facts stated above in Para-6, the applicant prays for the following relief(s):- i) To quash the order dtd.27.02.2018 under Annexure-7. ii) iii) To direct the respondents to allot the applicant OPS cadre and grant him all consequential benefits. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.” // 2 // 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the OPSC vide Advertisement No. 8 of 2015-16 for the Odisha Civil Services Examination, 2015 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application and participated in the selection process. In terms of the said advertisement Petitioner while making his application indicated his 1st preference for OPS Group-A (JB), 2nd preference for OAS Group-A (JB) and his 3rd choice for the post of ORS Group-B. After completion of the selection process, Petitioner was offered with appointment as against ORS (Group-B) basing on the final select list communicated by the Commission on 16.02.2017 under Annexure-2. 4.1. It is contended that subsequent to his selection and appointment as against ORS Group-B, when Petitioner came to know that appointment of two of the candidates selected as against OPS Group-A (JB) in SC Category, who were placed above him have been cancelled, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against OPS Group-A (JB) taking into account his position in the merit list and his preference so indicated in his application. Petitioner accordingly moved an application under Annexure-4 praying for his appointment as against the post of OPS Group-A (JB). 4.2. As the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-4 was not considered, Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1718(C) of 2017. The Tribunal vide order dtd.06.07.2017 under Annexure-5 while disposing the matter directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the grievance of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-4. It is contended that without proper appreciation of the claim of the Page 2 of 8 // 3 // Petitioner so made in Annexure-4 and the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No. 1 rejected Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order dtd.27.02.2018 under Annexure-7. 4.3. It is contended that since appointment of two of the candidates in SC Category placed at Sl. Nos. 302 & 331 of the merit list selected and appointed as against OPS Group-A (JB) Cadre, was cancelled, Petitioner taking into account his position in the merit list in SC category, was eligible to get the benefit of appointment as against OPS Group-A (JB), But without proper appreciation of his claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that rejection of the Petitioner’s claim under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other when hand made his submission justifying the rejection basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2, this Court taking into account the rival contention passed the following order on 20.07.2023:- “2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for his adjustment as against the vacancy in OPS Cadre vide order dt.27.02.2018 the advertisement issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission vide Advertisement No.8 of 2015-16. under Annexure-7, Pursuant to 4. It is contended that in terms of the said advertisement under Annexure-1, Petitioner in his application gave his 1st preference for OPS, Group-A(JB), for OAS, Group-A(JB) as his 2nd choice and for ORS Group-B as his 3rd choice. It is contended that taking into account his position in the merit list, Page 3 of 8 // 4 // though the Petitioner was offered with appointment in ORS Group-B, but due to the rejection of candidature of two other candidates, who were placed at Sl. No. 302 and 331 of the merit list who were selected in OPS Group-A(JB), the petitioner being placed next to the said candidates in the merit list became eligible to get the benefit of appointment in OPS Group-A(JB). When his claim was not considered, he approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal when directed for consideration, his claim was rejected vide order under Annexure-7. 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Additional Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that the Petitioner is not placed just below the other two candidates whose candidature were rejected. It is contended that those two candidates were placed at Sl. No.302 & 331 of the merit list and above the Petitioner, two other candidates in S.C. category were placed at Sl. No.366 and 367. Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.380 of the merit list so indicated in Paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit. It is accordingly contended that the claim of the Petitioner has been rightly rejected. 6. To the aforesaid submission of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also contended that the other two persons placed at Sl. No. 366 & 367 never opted for the post of OPS (Group-A(JB) and they have also not raised any claim to get the benefit of appointment in the post of OPS Group-A(JB) on rejection of the candidature of the candidates placed at Sl. No.302 & 331. 7. In view of the such stand taken by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court directs learned AGA to produce the option exercised by the candidates placed at Sl. No.366 and 367 of the merit list in SC category on the next date. 8. As requested, list this matter on 2nd August, 2023. Free copy of this order be provided to Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Additional Government Advocate for compliance.” 6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.07.2023, necessary instruction provided by the Govt. vide letter Page 4 of 8 // 5 // dtd.07.08.2023 was produced before this Court. On perusal of such instruction, this Court passed the following order on 31.08.2023:- “2. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by Govt. vide letter dtd.07.08.2023. The same be kept in record. 3. On consideration of the instruction this Court finds that the candidates placed at Sl. No. 366 & 367 have given their option in the following manner:- “As per the merit list submitted by the OPSC, Odisha, Cuttack (w.r.t. the Odisha Civil Services Examination, 2015), Shri Tapas Kumar Sethy, has been placed at Sl. No. 366 and Shri Kulamani Ranbida, has been placed at Sl. No. 367. The services preference exercised by Tapas Kumar Sethy are 1. OAS, 2. OPS, 3. ORS, 4. OTAS, 5. OCS and the services preference exercised by Kulamanti Ranbida are 1. OAS, 2. ORS, 3. OTAS, 4. OCS, 5. OPS.” 4. It is found from the said instruction that candidates placed at Sl. No. 366 & 367 never gave their preference to get the benefit of appointment in the cadre of OPS as their 1st preference and as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Parties, both of them have been appointed under the Odisha Revenue Service cadre. 5. Considering such submission, it is found that the candidates placed at Sl. No. 302 & 331 of the merit list in SC category were appointed as against OPS cadre. If those two (2) candidates did not join in the said cadre taking into account the option exercised by the candidates placed at Sl. No. 366 & 367, Petitioner could have been accommodated as against OPS cadre. 6. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned AGA prays for some time to obtain instruction on the same. 7. As requested by Mr. Mishra, list this matter on 08.09.2023. 8. Free copy of the order be provided to Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for compliance.” Page 5 of 8 // 6 // 7. Pursuant to the order dt.31.08.2023, learned AGA contended that in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner was recommended by the Commission with publication of the final select list vide notice dtd.16.02.2017 under Annexure-2. Taking into account the position of the Petitioner in the final select list in SC Category, Petitioner was appointed in ORS (Group-B) Cadre. After accepting the benefit, taking into account the cancellation of appointment of two of the selected candidates in SC Category, who were recommended to get the benefit of appointment under OPS Group-A (JB) Cadre, Petitioner made his grievance under Annexure-4 on 21.06.2017. The Tribunal thereafter vide order dtd.06.07.2017 under Annexure-5 directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take decision on the claim of the Petitioner as made in Annexure-5. Even though persons placed at Sl. Nos. 302 & 331 of the merit list in SC Category were appointed as against OPS Cadre, and they were relieved from their services with immediate effect vide Notification dtd.26.09.2017 under Annexure-6 on the ground that they do not fulfill the criteria of selection as indicated in Annexure-1, the claim of the Petitioner was considered in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal. 7.1. It is contended that since Petitioner had already got the benefit of appointment as against ORS Group-B Cadre, even though candidates placed at Sl. No. 302 & 331, who were selected and appointed as against OPS (Group-A) (JB) Cadre were relieved from their services with immediate effect vide Notification dtd.26.09.2017, but claim of the Petitioner was not considered on the ground that Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Page 6 of 8 // 7 // appointment in OPS (Group-A) (JB) Cadre as the validity of the select list has since expired and the appointment of the Petitioner in OPS (Group-A) Cadre will unsettle the seniority of candidates, who were already appointed in OPS Group-A (JB) Cadre pursuant to the further recruitment process undertaken by the State. 7.2. It is also contended that since the final select list was issued by the Commission on 17.02.2017 vide Annexure-2 and the process of selection has already been completed with appointment of the selected candidates in different Cadres, basing on their option exercised by at the time of making the application, the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment in respect of the select list, which has lost its force is not entertainable and his claim has been rightly rejected by Opp. Party No. 1 vide order under Annexure-7. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the selection process to fill up different posts in different categories was issued by the Commission vide Advertisement No. 8 of 2015- 16 under Annexure-1. The Commission vide notice dtd.16.02.2017 under Annexure-2 published the final select list and basing on the said select list published under Annexure-2, Petitioner was appointed as against ORS (Group-B) taking into account his position in the final merit list and the option exercised by him while making the application. 8.1. Even though considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court passed orders on 20.07.2023 and 31.07.2023, but considering the submission of the learned State Counsel that the Page 7 of 8 // 8 // validity of the select list has since expired with completion of the selection process, this Court is not inclined to entertain the claim of the Petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dtd.27.02.2018 under Annexure-7.
Decision
9. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Jan-2024 14:42:37 Page 8 of 8