The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2217 of 2013 Manas Ranjan Kar …. Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr.H. M. Dhal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 05. 1. This matter
Decision
ORDER 03.01.2024 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that Your Honour may be graciously pleased to consider the facts stated in the application, pass appropriate order so that the respondents may be directed specifically Respondent No.3 to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicant for the post of Junior Laboratory Technician (Pathology) in the office of the C.D.M.O., Jagatsinghpur as the first selected candidate was terminated from the post on the ground of the said person being over aged within a particular time. Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in this case. And allow this Original Application with cost”. // 2 // 4. It is contended that pursuant to the selection process initiated with issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-2 on 20.12.2006 for the post of Junior Laboratory Technician, in the provisional select list published under Annexure-3 on 03.04.2007, the name of the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2 and one Ajaya Kumar Sethi was placed at Sl.No.1. 4.1. Petitioner challenging the selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.4 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.115 of 2012. This Court vide order dtd.19.01.2012 disposed of the writ petition with a direction on the Collector, Jagatsinghpur to take a final decision in the matter by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4. In terms of the order passed by this Court, Collector-Jagatsinghpur vide his order dtd.15.11.2012 held the appointment of Opposite Party No.4 as Junior Laboratory Technician in the establishment of C.D.M.O, Jagatsinghpur as illegal. 4.2. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by the Collector on 15.11.2012 in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.115 of 2012, when Opposite Party No.4 was not terminated nor the Petitioner was appointed in his place, the present writ petition was filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 5. Considering the stand taken in the writ petition, this Court passed the following order on 20.07.2023:- “1. This matter Arrangement (Virtual / Physical) Mode. taken up is through Hybrid Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Considering the nature of dispute, this Court directs learned counsel for the Petitioner to obtain instruction as to whether Opp. Party No.4 on the face of the order passed by the Collector is continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 or not, as on date. 4. Such instruction shall be provided on the next date. As requested, 5. commencing 7th August, 2023”. list this matter in the week 6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.07.2023, counter affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 to 3 on 04.08.2023. In the counter affidavit, it has been clearly admitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Jagatsinghpur on 15.11.2012, Opposite Party No.4 was terminated from his services vide order dtd.07.12.2012. 7. Considering the grounds taken in the counter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Opposite Party No.4, who was illegally appointed, was terminated from his services vide order dtd.07.12.2012, Petitioner being placed at Sl.No.2 of the merit list published under Annexure-2, he should have been issued with the order of appointment as against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. But till date, no action has been taken in providing appointment to the Petitioner. 7.1. It is accordingly contended that necessary direction be issued to Opposite Party No.3 to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against the post of Junior Laboratory Technician. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 8. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State though does not dispute the fact that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.115 of 2012, Opposite Party No.4 was terminated from his services vide order dtd.07.12.2012, but it is contended that since the select list has expired its validity, no order of appointment can be issued in favour of the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that the prayer as made in the writ petition is liable for rejection. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 in the provisional select list published under Annexure-3, Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2 and Opposite Party No.4 was placed at Sl.No.1. But pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.115 of 2012, the selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.4, who was placed at Sl.No.1 was held as illegal by the Collector vide order dtd.15.11.2012 and Opposite Party No.4 was accordingly terminated from his services vide order dtd.07.12.2012. Since the selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.4 was held as illegal and he was terminated from his services w.e.f. 07.12.2012, Opposite Party No.3 after such termination of Opposite Party No.4 should have provided appointment to the Petitioner as the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.2 and he is prosecuting the matter all through after the selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.4. The stand taken by learned Addl. Government Advocate that Page 4 of 5 // 5 // the validity of the select list has expired and no order of appointment can be issued is not acceptable to this Court. 9.1. In view of such position, this Court while disposing the writ petition directs Opposite Party No.3 to provide appointment to the Petitioner as against the post, which fell vacant due to termination of Opposite Party No.4 vide order dtd.07.12.2012. Such an order of appointment be issued in favour of the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.3 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Jan-2024 15:28:23 Page 5 of 5