Orissa High Court
Smt. Priyatama Jena vs State Of Orissa & Others ...... Opposite ... on 22 August, 2012
Author: L.Mohapatra
Bench: L.Mohapatra
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.1456 OF 2012
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
__________
Smt. Priyatama Jena ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa & others ...... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. Sameer Kumar Das & S.K. Mishra
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Government Advocate
(For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2)
Mr. B.K. Dash
(For Opposite Party No.4)
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L.MOHAPATRA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. DASH
Date of hearing : 14.8.2012 Date of judgment : 22.8.2012
L.MOHAPATRA, J.This writ petition is directed against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 23.11.2011 passed in O.A. No.84 (C) of 1999. The petitioner was the applicant before the Tribunal.
2
2. The facts leading to filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal are as follows:
An advertisement was issued on 20.6.1991 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Junior Lecturers in the Higher Secondary Wing/Schools in the Government institutions in Class-II OES service in the scale of Rs.2,000-3,500/-. Several applications were received for appointment to different disciplines and through a screening test and interview conducted by the Selection Board, candidates were selected for such appointment. Appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates indicating therein that their appointment was on ad hoc basis with effect from the date of joining in the respective Colleges and they were to continue on ad hoc basis till 30.4.1992 or until further orders whichever was earlier. Challenging such conditional appointment, a batch of Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal and it was contended that the appointment letters were not in conformity with the advertisement and their appointments were made against regular vacancies and they were to be regularized in consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission but it was made conditional in contravention of the conditions laid down in the advertisement. It was further contended before the Tribunal in the batch of cases that there had been no consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission till hearing of the Original Application and there was also no reason to confine their 3 appointment till 30.4.1992. The condition imposed in the appointment order was arbitrary and illegal. The Tribunal disposed of the said batch of cases on 14.5.1993 with the following direction:
"In the result, therefore, we direct that the State Government shall refer the names of those of the ad hoc appointees to the Orissa Public Service Commission who did not apply for the posts of Junior Lecturers in response to Advertisement issued by it for the purpose of consultation as to their suitability for appointment against the posts held by them on regular basis. The State Government shall not refer names of those of the ad hoc appointees who had applied to the Commission for appointment to the posts pursuant to the Advertisement issued by it and have been declared unsuitable for appointment. We further direct that till consultation is made with the Public Service Commission in respect of the ad hoc appointees in respect of whom we have given direction as above, their appointment shall not be terminated."
The matter was ultimately carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of the Tribunal was confirmed.
3. The petitioner who was one of such appointees but had not approached the Tribunal along with others in the said batch of cases. She had been selected and continued on ad hoc basis in K.K.S. Womens College, Balasore. While continuing as such, the State Government decided to disengage her and other similarly situated Lecturers in terms of their appointment. She was not given any further extension after 15.3.2001 and accordingly her services stood 4 terminated automatically on and from 15.3.2001. The grievance of the petitioner in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal was that her case had not been considered in terms of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal in the batch of cases. The Tribunal in the impugned order rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she had applied for appointment to the post in pursuance of an advertisement of 1992 and though she was selected, because of her ranking in the merit list, she could not be offered appointment and accordingly rejected the Original Application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the previous batch of Original Applications the Tribunal had formed two categories of Junior Lecturers for consideration by the State Government. The first category is that of the Junior Lecturers who did not apply for the post of Junior Lecturers in response to the advertisement issued by it for the purpose of consultation as per their suitability for appointment against the post held by them on regular basis. The second category is that of the Junior Lecturers who had applied to the Commission for appointment to the post pursuant to the advertisement issued by it and have been declared unsuitable for appointment. The case of the petitioner is that she had been given ad hoc appointment having been selected for the post of Junior Lecturer in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.6.1991. At no point of time the Public Service Commission found her unsuitable for such 5 appointment and therefore, her case should have been considered for regular appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal in the previous batch of Original Applications directed the State Government to refer the names of those ad hoc appointees to the Orissa Public Service Commission who did not apply for the post of Junior Lecturers in response to the advertisement issued by it for the purpose of consultation as to their suitability for appointment against the post held by them on regular basis. The petitioner does not come under this category as she had applied for the post. The other direction of the Tribunal was that the State Government shall not refer the names of those of the ad hoc appointees who had applied to the Commission for appointment to the post pursuant to the advertisement issued by it and have been declared unsuitable for appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner comes under this category and she was never found unsuitable by the Orissa Public Service Commission. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having not been found unsuitable by the Orissa Public Service Commission, her case should have been considered for appointment on regular basis.
The learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post and was selected but because of her position in the merit list she could not be given appointment. 6 Accordingly the petitioner cannot take advantage of the judgment of the Tribunal delivered in the batch of cases.
5. Undisputedly the petitioner was one of the applicants who had submitted her application in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 20.6.1991 for being appointed as a Junior Lecturer. She was also selected and was appointed as such on ad hoc basis in K.K.S. Womens College, in the district of Balasore. Her appointment letter also contains the same stipulation that such appointment shall be on ad hoc basis till 30.4.1992 or until further orders whichever is earlier. When steps were taken to disengage such ad hoc appointees, several Original Applications were filed before the Tribunal but the petitioner did not challenge such action before the Tribunal. Ultimately she was disengaged with effect from 15.3.2001. In terms of the judgment of the Tribunal in the batch of Original Applications, the name of the petitioner was referred to Orissa Public Service Commission to determine her suitability on the basis of her application for appointment to such post in 1992. In the recruitment test on the basis of the advertisement during the year 1992 as against 26 vacancies, her position in the merit list was 54. Again another advertisement was issued during the year 1997-1998 for appointment against 35 vacancies. The petitioner applied for appointment to the said post but her position was 74 in the merit list and accordingly she could not be given appointment. The batch of Original Applications was disposed of 7 on 14.5.1993 and by that time advertisement had been issued once in the year 1992 for appointment of 26 Junior Lecturers and the petitioner had applied for appointment to the said post. Since the petitioner had applied for appointment to the said post, she was not covered by the first direction of the Tribunal. The interpretation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the second direction is not correct since the second direction was that the State Government shall not refer the names of those ad hoc appointees who had applied to the Commission for appointment to the post pursuant to the advertisement issued by it and have been declared unsuitable for appointment. The petitioner had applied in pursuance of the 1992 advertisement when the matter was pending before the Tribunal in the earlier batch of cases and was selected for appointment but only 26 vacancies were available to be filled up whereas the position of the petitioner was 54 in the merit list. Accordingly though the petitioner was not found unsuitable, she could not be given appointment because of her position in the merit list. Same was the position in 1997-1998 when 35 posts were available to be filled up and position of the petitioner in the merit list was 74. The Tribunal having rejected the Original Application on the above ground, we find no infirmity in the same and accordingly we also find no merit in the writ petition.
8
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
..............................
L.Mohapatra, J.
C.R. Dash, J. I agree.
..................................
C.R. Dash, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 22nd August, 2012/Kar