Orissa High Court
Smt. Ranjana Maharana vs Tpcodl on 6 September, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18127 OF 2016
(In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Smt. Ranjana Maharana .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
TPCODL, Khurda & Ors. .... Opp. Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra-1, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party (s) : Mr. Ajay Dash, Adv.
for O.Ps.2 & 3
Mr. Basudev Pujari, Adv.
for O.Ps.4, 5 & 9
Mr. Ramakanta Sarangi, Adv.
for O.Ps.6, 7, 8 & 10
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.07.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-06.09.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the Select List published by the Central Electricity Supply Utility (CESU), Orissa, Bhubaneswar (now "TP Central Odisha Distribution Limited Page 1 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 (TPCODL), Odisha") for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) and the appointment of Opposite Party Nos.4 to 10 in the said post. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. Facts culminating in filing of the present Writ Petition are that:
(i) The management of CESU vide letter No.33451 dated 24.11.2005, issued by the General Manager (HRA), appointed the Petitioner as a Junior Accountant in CESU on a contractual basis for a period of two years on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.4000/- against an existing vacancy;
subject to the condition that, on successful completion of the contract period and depending upon her performance, she would be appointed on probation as a 'Regular' Junior Accountant in the time scale of pay of Rs.4400-7905/- with usual D.A and other allowance and benefits admissible as per the Rules of the CESU.
(ii) Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner joined in the CESU as a Junior Accountant (contractual). Thereafter, the management of CESU vide office order No.44792 dated 19.12.2007 appointed the Petitioner on probation as a 'Regular' Junior Accountant and after successful completion of the period of probation, vide office order No.3781 dated 09.02.2009 allowed her to continue as Junior Accountant on regular basis.
(iii) As the things stood thus, on 03.11.2010, the Opposite Party No.3 issued an Advertisement inviting applications for 13 posts of Assistant Manager (Finance) (E-3 post), inter alia, prescribing that the candidate must possess a degree in any discipline along with CA/ICWA qualifications. Additionally, a working knowledge of M.S. Office and Page 2 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 accounting software is required. The candidate must also pass an Oriya Language Test equivalent to Middle English (M.E.) standard. The Advertisement further prescribed that the candidate should have minimum one year of post qualification experience in the field of Finance, Accounts, Auditing, and Commercial Functions. It was elucidated that the candidates having experience in Power Sector will be given preference and that upper age limit is relaxable up to 45 years in case of internal candidates.
(iv) Pursuant to the said Advertisement, the Petitioner submitted her application for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) as she fulfilled the requisite qualification and experience as prescribed in the Advertisement.
(v) The management of CESU did not conduct any written test. However, the Chief HRD Officer of CESU, vide letter No.13306 dated 23.04.2011, directed the Petitioner to appear in the Viva Voce Test on 05.05.2014 for selection to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance). The Petitioner turned up for the Viva-voce Test.
(vi) When inquiring about the reasons for not inviting the petitioner to participate in the written test, she was informed that the written test was waived for departmental candidates. However, she later discovered that no written test was conducted at all.
(vii) While the matter stood thus, the management of CESU appointed the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 10 along with Sunita Kumari Mohapatra, Asim Kumar Das, Jyoti Ranjan Ray, Debadutta Acharya, Bijaya Kumar Page 3 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 Prusty, Shuvasis Prusty, Manjit Singh, A. Sapan Kumar Dora, Raj Narayan Mishra and Priyanath Behera as Assistant Manager (Finance).
(viii) On the applications of the Petitioner, the Public Information Officer, vide letters dated 11.04.2014, 17.06.2014 and 11.08.2014, supplied information and documents including the select list to the Petitioner.
(ix) Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.2/ Chief Executive Officer by filing representations 08.02.2016, 20.04.2016 and 11.08.2016 praying therein to consider her legitimate claim for appointment as Assistant Manager (Finance). As the Opposite Party No.2 sat over her representations, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.9276 of 2016 before this Court challenging the action of the management.
(x) This Court vide order dated 08.06.2016 disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of that order.
(xi) Due to Opposite Party No. 2's failure to address the petitioner's representation as directed by this Court, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 1271 of 2016 before this Court. During the pendency of that Contempt Petition, Opposite Party No. 2 issued Order No. 19139 dated 22.08.2016, rejecting the petitioner's representation in a mechanical manner without proper consideration. Consequently, this Writ Petition has been filed.
II. PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28
(i) Paragraph 11(h) of the GRIDCO Officers' Recruitment Policy stipulates that the panel of reserve candidates shall not exceed 50% of the number of advertised vacancies and must be maintained for one year from the completion of the selection process. During this one-year period, the appropriate appointing authority may utilize the reserve panel for any further requirements. However, as evidenced by the Select List, the management created a panel of thirteen reserve candidates for the thirteen advertised vacancies and subsequently appointed all these reserve candidates to positions beyond the advertised vacancies. This action contravenes the policy and invalidates the selection process. Consequently, the reserve list and the appointments made from it are flawed and should be annulled.
(ii) Out of thirteen selected candidates, Jyoti Ranjan Ray (Sl. No.3), Bijaya Kumar Prusty (Sl. No.5), and Suresh Chandra Nanda (Sl. No.13) were candidates from the department and the rest were outsider candidates. The management of CESU issued appointment orders to all the thirteen selected candidates named in the selected list. Surest Chandra Nanda (Sl. No.13) did not accept the appointment under direct recruitment as he got promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) under promotional quota. Dhiren Beura (Sl. No.6), and Santoshini Mishra (Sl. No.12) of the Select List did not join. So, the management appointed Rajendra Prasad Kar, Lipsa Tripathy, and Niranjan Panda placed at Sl. Ns.1, 2 and 3 of the Waiting List against the resultant vacancies as Assistant Manager (Finance). As Lipsa Tripathy did not accept the appointment, the management appointed Bijaya Kumar Panda, placed Page 5 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 at Sl. No.4 of the Waiting List, in her place. In the aforesaid manner, the management filled up all the thirteen vacancies of Assistant Manager (Finance) as advertised.
(iii) The management of CESU implemented an unconventional procedure by appointing Opp. Party Nos. 7 to 10, who were ranked at Sl. Nos. 5 to 8 on the Waiting List, as Assistant Managers (Finance), despite these appointments exceeding the number of advertised vacancies.
(iv) It is a well-established principle that an employer cannot make appointments from the Select List beyond the number of advertised vacancies, and once the advertised vacancies are filled, the Select List becomes exhausted. In this case, the management issued an advertisement for the recruitment of thirteen Assistant Managers (Finance). As previously detailed, all thirteen advertised vacancies were filled with the appointment of Bijaya Kumar Panda who was ranked at Sl. No. 4 on the Waiting List, thereby, exhausting the Select List. Consequently, the appointment of Opposite Party Nos. 7 to 10 as Assistant Managers (Finance) beyond the advertised vacancies is improper and should be annulled.
(v) As per Paragraph 16.1 of the GRIDCO Officers' Recruitment Policy, candidates up to level E-5 (Manager) including Management Trainees shall be selected on the basis of written test and personal interview. Fifty percent marks in the written test (forty-five percent for SC/ST candidates) shall be qualifying marks for personal interview. In the instant case, the management proceeded with the selection without conducting written test as envisaged in the Recruitment Policy. There Page 6 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 was no qualifying mark for selection of candidates for the Personal Interview and called the candidates for Personal Interview in a pick and choose manner without any basis which vitiates the entire process of selection. Therefore, the Select List and the appointments made pursuant thereto are bad and liable to be quashed.
(vi) The management compiled a list of thirteen reserve candidates corresponding to the number of advertised vacancies and appointed Opposite Party Nos. 7 to 10 to positions beyond those advertised. This action is in violation of paragraph 11(h) of the Recruitment Policy and, therefore, should be invalidated.
(vii) The management issued the Advertisement for recruitment of Assistant Manager (Finance). All the vacancies so advertised were filled up on appointment of Bijaya Kumar Panda. So, the appointment of the Opposite Party Nos.7 to 10 as Assistant Manager (Finance) beyond the vacancies advertised is bad and liable to be quashed.
(viii) In order to substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon some judgments i.e. Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors.1, Mahesh Chandra Verma & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others2, Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and Another v. State of Assam & Others3, Arup Das & others v. State of Assam & others4, State of Orissa & another v. Rajkishore Nanda & others5, Rakhi Ray 1 (1995) 3 SCC 486 2 2012 (6) Supreme 647 3 2012 (8) Supreme 235 4 2012 (5) SCC 559 5 (2010) 6 SCC 777 Page 7 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 & others v. High Court of Delhi & others6 and Dr. Smrutisudha Pattanaik v. Acharya Harihara Regional Cancer Centre, Cuttack & others7.
(ix) Therefore, he contended that the impugned Select List and the appointments of the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 10 as Assistant Manager (Finance) are bad and liable to be quashed.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NOS.1 to 3:
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Opposite Party No.1, the Electricity Distribution Company was initially formed as CESCO which was subsequently became CESU.
CESCO formulated its own Rules, but since it has not formulated the recruitment policy, the Board passed resolution to adopt "GRIDCO Officer's Recruitment Policy" subject to necessary changes with the approval of the Board.
(ii) From its inception until the advertisement in question for the year 2010, the Board of the then CESU, as a matter of policy, decided to conduct selections solely through interviews and did not administer any written tests.
(iii) An advertisement was issued for the position of Junior Accountant. Following this advertisement, only interviews were conducted, and the petitioner was selected. The petitioner was subsequently issued an 6 (2010) 2 SCC 637 7 2017 (1) ILR-Cut-1077 Page 8 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 appointment letter on a contract basis, and his service was later regularized.
(iv) On 03.11.2010, CESU issued an open advertisement inviting applications for various positions, including 13 posts of Assistant Manager (Finance) under direct recruitment. The petitioner applied for the Assistant Manager (Finance) position as an in-service candidate, with age relaxation for the direct recruitment. The petitioner attended the interview as scheduled, but her name was not included either in the select list or in the waiting list. All 13 positions were filled from the select list and waiting list according to the order of merit.
(v) Due to a change in the policy for electricity bill collection, there was an increased requirement for Assistant Managers (Finance) in each sub- division. Following Board approval and with the waiting list remaining valid for one year as stipulated in the advertisement, CESU filled an additional 7 posts of Assistant Manager (Finance) from the waiting list, adhering to the order of merit.
(vi) The Petitioner made different representations for consideration of her case as per the personal interview. But, as her claim was devoid of merit, the same was rejected by the authorities.
(vii) The Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9276 of 2016 and this Court had directed for disposal of her representation within four weeks. However, the representation of the Petitioner was rejected by a detailed reasoned order vide order dated 22.08.2016.
(viii) Since its inception in 1998 until the publication of the disputed advertisement in 2010, CESCO conducted all selections solely through Page 9 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 interviews, without administering any written tests. The petitioner was also selected for the position of Junior Accountant in 2005 based solely on her performance in the interview.
(ix) The Advertisement in question of the year 2010 specifically stipulates that -
"i) The eligible candidates shall be required to appear at written examination or/and personal interview...
ii) The Management reserves the right to accept/reject any application on the basis of above criteria, to increase or decrease the number of position advertised ...."
(x) The petitioner has intentionally omitted to include the complete advertisement in her Writ Petition, specifically leaving out the last page which contains general instructions and other relevant details. Additionally, the petitioner has not submitted the full copy of the "GRIDCO Officers' Recruitment Policy."
(xi) The petitioner has approached this Court without full disclosure, particularly in light of her awareness of the two conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Despite being aware of these conditions, she participated in the interview but was not selected.
(xii) The petitioner has not challenged the advertisement itself. Following her unsuccessful interview, she submitted various representations which were found to lack merit. However, pursuant to a Court directive, her representation was reconsidered and subsequently rejected with a reasoned order.
(xiii) Again the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging the same on the following two grounds:-
Page 10 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28
a) No written test was conducted as per the Gridco Officer's Recruitment Policy which is adopted by CESU.
b) Even though 13 nos. of Asst. Manager (Finance) were advertised, but 07 additional posts were filled up from the waiting list.
(xiv) In response to the question raised in the Writ Petition, it is stated that not all provisions of the GRIDCO Recruitment Policy are mandatory or binding on CESU. Clause 10(e) of the GRIDCO Policy indicates that the HRD Committee or the Board may determine the methods of recruitment periodically. Since 1998, CESCO has conducted selections solely through interviews, as per the policy approved by its Board, including the selection of the petitioner in 2005.
(xv) Additionally, due to the increased need for positions following a change in company policy, the advertisement specifically stated that the management could adjust the number of posts advertised as needed. In this instance, the change in the billing system created a requirement for additional posts. With the Board's approval, CESU filled an extra 7 positions from the waiting list, which was consistent with the terms of the advertisement and the Board's policy decision.
This action also aligns with Clause 5 of the Gridco Officer's Recruitment Policy, which allows the Director, HR, to utilize the reserve panel and/or adopt any recruitment methods outlined in the policy, subject to the approval of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
Page 11 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 (xvi) After participating in the interview, an unsuccessful candidate is estopped from challenging the selection process, especially when no illegality or unfair practices are evident and the process was conducted diligently and strictly based on merit according to the policy of the then CESU, now succeeded by TPCODL. Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 10 were selected based on their merit in the interview and were appointed within the validity period of the select list, which was one year. They have since been working for the past 12 years.
(xvii) In the above facts and law, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
IV. SUBMISSIONS OF OPPOSITE PARTY NOS.4 TO 10:
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 10 earnestly made the following submissions in support of their contentions:
(i) This Writ Petition is not maintainable because of the fact that the Petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the Advertisement and selection process and the Petitioner herself participated in the interview. After being unsuccessful since she has failed to qualify in the interview has filed this present case. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, the Petitioner being unsuccessful candidate having participated in the interview and being failed, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable.
(ii) In order to substantiate their contentions, they placed reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Karunesh Kumar and others8; Anupal Singh Vrs.8
AIR 2023 SC 52 Page 12 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 State of U.P.9; Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K10; K.H. Siraj vrs. High Court of Kerala11; Sadananda Halo Vrs. Mamtaz Ali Sheikh12 and OM Prakash Shukla Vrs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla13:
(iii) In such view of the matter, it was contended that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. The recruitment provisions outlined in the policy of Grid Corporation of Odisha (Gridco) are not obligatory or binding on the Central Electricity Supply Utility (CESU). While Gridco and CESU operate in related sectors, CESU maintains autonomy in determining its recruitment procedures. This distinction is explicitly stated in Clause 10(e) of Gridco's Recruitment Policy, which grants the Human Resource Development (HRD) Committee or the Board of Directors the authority to define and modify recruitment methods as required by evolving circumstances. The relevant portion is produced hereinbelow:
"10. METHODS OF RECRUITMENT:
The recruitments of the company shall be made by oneler more of the following methods to be decided by the HRD Committee of the Board before each recruitment ...
(e) Recruitment through any other method as the HRD Committee of the Board may decide from time to time."9
(2020) 2 SCC 173 10 (1995) 3 SCC 486 11 (2006) 6 SCC 395 12 (2008) 4 SCC 619 13 1986 Supp SCC 285 Page 13 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28
7. Since 1998, CESCO, now CESU, has consistently adhered to a recruitment process based on interview assessments, a method duly sanctioned by its Board of Directors. This approach, which excludes written tests or other selection methods, has been the standard practice for all recruitments, including the selection of the petitioner in 2005. The interview-centric process, formally approved by CESU's governing body, was designed to ensure transparency and merit-based hiring within the framework of company policy.
8. In response to shifts in operational needs and company policies, CESU's Board retains the authority to adjust staffing levels and recruitment processes as necessary. This flexibility was underscored in a recent job advertisement, which explicitly stated that the management could either increase or decrease the number of positions based on organizational requirements. This became pertinent in the present case/ where changes to CESU's billing system created an additional demand for personnel. With the approval of the Board, CESU filled seven additional positions from the reserve list of candidates who had previously participated in the recruitment process. This decision adhered strictly to the terms of the advertisement and the policy guidelines in place at the time.
9. Further, this action was consistent with Clause 5 of GRIDCO's Officer Recruitment Policy, which provides that the Director of Human Resources (HR), with the Chairman-cum-Managing Director's approval, may utilize a reserve list of candidates to fill vacancies. The policy also allows the Director to employ other methods of recruitment Page 14 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 outlined in the policy, provided the appropriate approvals are secured from senior management.
10.Furthermore, it is trite in law that a candidate who voluntarily participates in a selection procedure is precluded from challenging that procedure after the fact if they are unsuccessful. This principle of estoppel is applicable in this case, where the unsuccessful candidate is legally barred from disputing the modalities of the selection process. No evidence of irregularities or unfair practices has been demonstrated, and the selection was made on the basis of merit, as required by CESU's Board-approved policies.
11.In the case of D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors.14, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Sarojakumari, accepting her contention based on estoppels. Drawing support from D.G. Sarna v. University of Lucknow15, Madan Lal v. State of J&K 16and Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar17, it was held that an unsuccessful participate cannot turn around and challenge the selection process, after participating in it without any challenge. It was observed as follows:
"4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that Respondent No.1 having taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection.
14 Civil Appeal No. 8345-8346 of 2009 (Supreme Court) 15 (1976) 3 SCC 585 16 (1995) 3 SCC 486 17 (2010) 12 SCC 576 Page 15 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28
5. In Dr. G. Sarna vs. University of Lucknow & Ors.,1 the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows :-
"15.We do not/ however/ consider it necessary in the present case to get into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection (1976) 3 SCC 585 Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee......"
6. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. 2 , the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows :-
"9.......Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted......"
7. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar,3 , this Court held as follows :-
Page 16 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 "23.......Surely/ if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name (1995) 3 SCC 486 (2010) 12 SCC 576 does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."
12.The petitioner did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment.
13.The candidates ultimately selected for the positions in question (Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 10) were chosen based on their merit as determined by their performance in the interview. Their appointments were made within the one-year validity period of the select list. Since their selection, they have been employed continuously for the past 12 years, having been appointed in accordance with the terms of the company's recruitment policy.
14.Additionally/ CESU's subsequent acquisition by Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Limited (TPCODL) does not undermine the legitimacy of the recruitment decisions made under CESU's governance. The recruitment processes followed at the time seems to be Page 17 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Sep-2024 17:36:28 compliant with the legal and procedural framework established by CESU and its Board of Directors.
VI. CONCLUSION:
15.With respect to the aforesaid discussion and the cases cited hereinabove, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the Petitioner.
16.This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 6th Sept.,2024/ Page 18 of 18