Orissa High Court
The National Law University Of Odisha vs Sabyasachi Mohanty & Others on 7 August, 2023
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.723 of 2022
The National Law University of Odisha,
Cuttack and another ....... Appellants
-Versus-
Sabyasachi Mohanty & others ....... Respondents
______________________________________________________________
For the Appellants : Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalei, Advocate
______________________________________________________________
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
THE HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
07th August, 2023 S. Talapatra, J. By means of this intra-court appeal, the judgment dated 10.05.2022 delivered in W.P.(C) No.33209 of 2020 has been challenged by the appellant, National Law University of Odisha (in short "NLUO") its Registrar. The respondent No.1 filed the writ petition urging this Court to quash the decision of the appellants as contained in the letter dated 17.10.2020 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] whereby the appellants communicated the writ petitioner that on expiry of his 2 tenure of service he will not be given further extension as the Assistant Finance Officer (contractual). That apart, it is urged in the writ petition that the respondent No.1 be reinstated in the post of Assistant Finance Officer at NLUO within a stipulated time with all consequential service benefits. In addition, it is urged by the writ petitioner that the opposite party No.4, the proforma-respondent No.5 in the appeal be directed to conduct an impartial and fair inquiry taking into consideration the audit report [Annexure-7 series to the writ petition] as submitted by the respondent No.3, Accountant General, Odisha, the proforma-respondent No.4 in the appeal. As the further relief, the petitioner has urged this Court to regularize his service as the Assistant Finance Officer at NLUO with effect from 14.10.2014 along with all consequential benefits. There is no dispute that the respondent No.1 was selected and engaged as the Assistant Finance Officer pursuant to the advertisement No.NOUO/T-NT/ 001002/2014 [part of Annexure-2].
2. It may be noted that in the said advertisement at Sl. No.7, the post of Assistant Finance Officer has been clearly shown as Consolidated/ Contractual. Thus, the respondent No.1 knew from the very beginning that his engagement, if he is selected, would be contractual. There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged by the appellants by the letter of Page 2 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 3 engagement No.NLUO/CAD/9950/2014 dated 14.10.2016. In the said letter of engagement, it has been clearly spelt out that the said engagement as the Assistant Finance Officer is on contractual basis with following terms & conditions:
"1. On acceptance of offer and upon joining duties, you will be governed by the rules of the University, as applicable, from time to time.
2. the post is offered initially for one year. The University has the rights to decide upon your continuation based on your satisfactory performance.
3. This being a residential University, you will normally be required to be on the campus premises from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., six days a week or the time and days as may be decided by the University, as per its need.
4. Should a favourable decision be taken on your continuation, you are likely to be offered a long term employment. You and your family will also be covered under the medi-claim insurance policy as per the existing policy of the University.
5. The post of which you are being offered appointment carries a consolidated gross salary of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only per month, subject to statutory deduction of TDS, Professional Tax, EPF etc.
6. Your employment with the University may be terminated without assigning any reasons at one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof and you may also have a corresponding right to terminate it at one month's notice or in payment of salary in lieu thereof.
7. This appointment is subject to the regulations of the University as may be in force at any time."Page 3 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 4
3. We consider that as the communication dated 17.10.2020 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition is in the centre of the controversy, the entire text of the said communication should be reproduced. Accordingly, it reproduced hereunder:
National Law University Odisha (established by Odisha Act IV of 2008) Prof. (Dr.) Yogesh Pratap Singh Vice-Chancellor (I/c) Date: October 17, 2020 Mr. Sabyasachi Mohanty Assistant Finance Officer National Law University Odisha Cuttack.
Dear Mr. Sabyasachi Mohanty I am directed to inform you that the competent authority has decided not to grant any further extension to you as Assistant Finance Officer. You will be relieved from your duties on 19th October 2020 at 9 A.M. You are also directed to handover charge along with all files/documents/ audit reports etc. to Mr. Bibhu Prasad Kar, Assistant Registrar, NLUO on Monday,19 October 2020 at 9 A.M. Thank you so much for rendering services to NLUO.
We with you all the best.
With warm regards, Yours sincerely, Illegible Prof.(Dr.) Yogesh Pratap Singh"
4. The respondent No.1 challenged the said decision contained in the letter dated 17.10.2020 on the following grounds:
(i) The NLUO has terminated services of the respondent No.1 without giving any notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof.
(ii) The said decision has been taken malafide inasmuch as the University has retained other employees engaged on Page 4 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 5 contractual basis in terms of the same advertisement [part of Annexure-2] Further, having referred to the decision of the Executive Council dated 11.02.2012, the respondent No.1 contended that the NLUO has regularized services of some of its non-teaching staff on completion of two years term. As such, the respondent No.1 is entitled to similar relief of regularization with effect from 14.10.2018.
5. It is to be noted here that after the NLUO-appellants filed their counter affidavit traversing the averments in the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 amended the writ petition with leave of the Court and incorporated the additional relief of regularization with effect from 14.10.2016.
6. NLUO and its Officers by filing the counter affidavit had clearly contended that (a) so far the question of prior notice is concerned no notice was required as the terms of contractual engagement came to its end. It is not a case of termination and hence, the conditions as laid down under Clause-6 of the terms & conditions of the engagement, as reproduced above, are not to be satisfied, (b) It has been clearly stated by NLUO that the engagement of the respondent No.1 is purely Page 5 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 6 contractual one and the parties are bound by the terms & conditions of the contract and (c) As the engagement was accepted by the respondent No.1 consciously, he cannot now turn around and challenge the non- extension.
7. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has allowed the writ petition by observing as follows:
(a) The order of discontinuance of the contract is an order of termination within the meaning of Clause-6 of the contract.
(b) The said impugned order [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and
(c) The NLUO while appointing the Finance Officer to cater has substituted the respondent No.1.
8. Having observed as above the order dated 17.10.2020 has been declared bad in law. The appellants have been directed to deem the respondent No.1 continue in the post of Assistant Finance Officer without any interruption.
9. It has been further directed that the respondent No.1 will be entitled to 50% of his pay over the last pay he had drawn and such payment shall be made within a period of one month. Further the respondent No.1 shall be entitled to interest on the back wages at-least @ 5% per annum. In default, it has been declared that the respondent Page 6 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 7 No.1 shall be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum from the date of expiry of one month of the judgment till it is paid to the respondent No.1. For the purpose of reference, a passage from the said judgment dated 10.05.2022 is extracted hereunder:
"8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the pleadings of the parties as well as material support taken therein, this Court proceeds as follows:- (i) Undisputedly there is creation of a post of Asst. Finance Officer in the NLUO. There is also advertisement inviting applications from the interested and qualified persons to apply against such post as clearly appearing in Annexure-
2. On receipt of large number of applications the University sets up a selection process and Petitioner's engagement all comes of a selection process. True initially the appointment of the Petitioner was for one year, the offer of appointment vide Annexure-4 nowhere indicates the offer was a tenure of one year. Again by the conduct of the University for extending the services of the Petitioner time and again, further the University entering into the decisions through the Committee to regularize the employees completing satisfactorily two years of service previously, this Court does not find strength in the submission of the University that the posting involved was periodic and there is automatic end of the journey of the Petitioner. It is on the other hand, looking to the nature of appointment through a selection process and that too after meeting the qualification criteria set by the University and having resolved regularizing person completed two years of continuous service; may be on previous occasion, the Petitioner has certainly a case of legitimate expectation, the University acting in the guise of Committee resolution did not perform as a model employer. Further when the Petitioner was holding the post of Asst. Finance Officer, the Post filled in by way of deputation is Finance Officer. Both the posts since are completely different, there is grave doubt in the submission of the University that the post held by the Petitioner is already filled up by bringing a person on deputation. This Court further finds, once the appointment is based on selection and continuance of such person is dependent on his satisfactory performance, the non-continuation after so much extensions must be on a dissatisfactory note. Further, in case of no extension, such action has to be taken an action on dissatisfactory note, in such event there ought to be compliance of natural justice.
This Court here again finds, vide Annexure-4 the Petitioner is appointed being selected through a selection process and further Page 7 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 8 appointed initially for one year with scope of extension and continuing subject to the decision of the University, the University accordingly accommodated the Petitioner beyond one year and vide Annexure-6 taking a decision not to give further extension."
10. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has emphatically stated that Clause-6 of the terms & conditions does not have any relevance for adjudication of the reliefs, as urged by the respondent No.1 in his writ petition.
11. Having referred to the communication dated 04.11.2019 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel stated that it has been laid therein very clearly that the contractual appointment of the respondent No.3 will be extended by one year with effect from 18.10.2019. It has been also made clear that the terms & conditions of the letter of engagement dated 14.12.2016 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] shall govern the extended period of the engagement. The impugned decision as contained in the communication dated 17.10.2020 does not put any stigma on the respondent No.1 and it has been simply stated that the competent authority has decided not to grant any further extension to the respondent No.1 as Assistant Finance Officer. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 was directed to handover the charge along with all files/documents/audit report etc. to one Assistant Registrar of NLUO.
Page 8 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 9
12. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that two positions as taken by the respondent No.1 simultaneously are mutually destructive. In the one hand, the respondent No.1 has stated that the impugned decision dated 17.10.2020 is an order of termination and as such, he was entitled to the process as laid down in Clause-6 of the terms & conditions and on the other hand, the respondent No.1 has urged this Court to regularize his service from an anterior date which is the initial date of his engagement in terms of the advertisement under Annexure-2 to the writ petition. There is no basis of claiming regularisation in terms of the above conditions of service.
13. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has contended that without any relevance to the core challenge, one audit report has been brought in the picture with unclean hands knowing fully well that if any objection is raised on an audit report there is a definitive process to follow. NLUO shall clarify the objection/s as raised in the audit report and thereafter, the final report will be published. According to Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel there is no malafide in the action of the appellants. They have their right to consider the necessity of continuance. The respondent No.2 does not have any vested right to continue in the post which is clearly declared as the contractual post.
Page 9 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 10
14. The petitioner had fully accepted the terms & conditions without any demur and as such, the terms & conditions are binding on the respondent No.1.
15. The law is well settled that for being engaged in a contractual post for a few years, no person can derive any right to be regularized.
16. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has placed his reliance on Union of India & others vs. N. Murugessan & others: 2022 SCC 25. In N. Murugessan (supra), it has been clearly held that suitability and adequacy are within discretion of the employer. If there is no arbitrariness in not considering the extension of tenure of a contractual employee, that cannot be held either unfair or against the law.
17. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has contended that in N. Murugessan (supra), it has been further held that acquiescence will mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It includes reluctant consent to an act as well. It has been contended that the doctrine of approbate and reprobate is only a species of estoppel. In this regard, a decision of the apex court in State of Punjab vs. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu: 2014 (15) SCC 114 has been pressed in the service to contend that it is the settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed and it is complied with, accepted by the other parties and the benefit is derived out of no Page 10 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 11 challenge should be allowed to be raised it on any ground. It has been held in Dhanjit Singh Sandhu (supra) as follows:
"10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage."
18. Following that principle of law in N. Murugessan (supra) it has been held that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel. The principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (equitable estoppel), which is the rule of equity. By this law a person may be precluded by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when he has to speak, from asserting a right which he would otherwise be entitled.
19. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel, having referred to the grounds as raised in the writ petition, has contended that the non-extension cannot be challenged by the respondent No.1. Mr. Rath has submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is grossly wrong for another reason. The settled principle of law is that if an order of termination is set-aside on the ground of violation of principles of Page 11 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 12 natural justice, the Court cannot reinstate straight away but can only remit the matter to that stage in which the natural justice was violated [Chairman, LICI of India & others vs. A. Masilamani: 2013 (6) SCC 530].
20. Having referred the decision of the apex court in Management of Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited vs. Walkman Pratap Singh: (2019) 2 SCC 743 and State of Rajasthan & others vs. Dayalal: (2011) 2 SCC 427, it has been contended for the appellants that a person who is not in service cannot seek regularization. Since the respondent No.1 is no more in the contractual service, the question of his regularization is far-fetched. There is no illegality in engaging one Finance Officer, which is admittedly a superior and statutory post, inasmuch as the respondent No.1 cannot claim any right of appointment on deputation. The respondent No.1 has desperately bundled a set of imagined factors for purpose of showing that a serious prejudice has been caused to the respondent No.1.
21. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has stated that there is no question of applying the principle of natural justice in the context of the case, inasmuch as at the time of extending the tenure of engagement, it had been quite unambiguously adverted that the extension is only for Page 12 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 13 one year to avoid any sort of confusion. Even in the order of renewal, the specific date has been mentioned when the contractual engagement will come to an end. Finally, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has emphatically stated that the person who is challenging any consequential order is always under legal obligation to challenge the basic order and only if, the same is found to be wrong, consequential orders may be examined. To buttress that objection, a decision of the apex court in Amarjeet Singh & others vs. Devi Ratan & others:
(1010) 1 SCC 417 has been referred by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel.
22. In this case, the respondent No.1 did not challenge the basic order of engagement and the subsequent orders of extension. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has therefore submitted that the challenge is not maintainable. He has further submitted that the observation of the learned Single Judge that the order of discontinuation speaks on efficiency of the respondent No.1 and hence, it casts the blame of unsuitability on the respondent No.1. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has contended very firmly that in the entire writ petition, such allegation has not been made by the respondent No.1 and thus, the observation of the learned Single Judge is totally unfounded. While concluding his Page 13 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 14 submission, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel has emphatically stated that the impugned judgment cannot survive the scrutiny of law.
23. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Dalei, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has contended that the engagement order contains Clause-7 which provides that the appointment that was made is subject to the regulations of the University as may be in force at any time. In this regard, Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has in the beginning of his submission taken us to the National Law University Odisha Act, 2008 and refers to Sections-15 & 20. Both the sections lay down the hierarchy of posts. But in that hierarchy there is no permanent post of Assistant Finance Officer. However, the post of the Finance Officer is shown in the hierarchy. We have failed to persuade ourselves why Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has referred this provision.
24. It appears very clearly that under the National Law University Odisha Act, 2008, there is no post of Assistant Finance Officer. No other reference has been made to show that Assistant Finance Officer is the permanent post in NLUO. Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has stated that the Executive Council of the said University in their meeting dated 11.02.2012 resolved, against the Agenda Item No.7, to consider the feasibility of regularization of non-teaching staff in the following terms. Page 14 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 15
"The Executive Council after detailed deliberations, taking into account the financial feasibility of regularization of non-teaching staff approved the regularization for the employees who have put in consistently good performance for a minimum of two years and satisfy the eligibility rules of the State Government or NLUO whichever are higher."
25. Inviting a reference to the above resolution, Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has submitted that the appellants have discriminated against the respondent No.1 in the process of regularization. When the other contractual non-teaching employees were regularized, the respondent No.1 was not regularized. Thus, the legitimate expectation of the respondent No.1 has been belied. Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has stated that the appellants have filled up the post of Finance Officer on deputation from the Government of Odisha for three years, but in that place, since the petitioner has all the qualifications, he could have considered against that post for regularization. The petitioner's competence for the post of the Finance Officer was never tested by any transparent method. In our view, since the post of the Finance Officer was never occupied by the petitioner, the question of regularization is not at all relevant. Hence, we will not further discuss on this ground. Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has referred a series of decisions viz. Kartik Chandra Panda vs. State of Orissa & others : 2017 (II) OLR 545, Page 15 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 16 Dillip Kumar Baral vs. BPUT: 2013 (II) OLR 2010, State of Haryana & others vs. Piara Singh & others: AIR 1992 SC 2130, State of Punjab & others vs. Inder Singh & others: AIR 1998 SC 7, Dr. Utam Kumar Samant vs. KIITS & others: 2014 (Suppl.II) OLR 852, J. Jeyapaul vs. S.R.M. University & others: Civil Appeal No.14553 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2012, State of Jharkhand & others vs. Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd. Ranchi & another: 2020 SCC Online 968, Jarnail Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & others: 1986 (3) SCC 277, National Building Construction Corporation vs. S. Raghunathan & others: (1998) 7 SCC 66, Secretary, State of Karnataka & others vs. Umadevi (3) & others:
(2006) 4 SCC 1, Union of India & others vs. N. Murugessan & others: 2022 (2) SCC 25, State of Rajasthan & others vs. Dayalal & others: (2011) 2 SCC 429, Management of Barabara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. Vs. Workman Pratap Singh: (2019) 2 SCC 743, Manish Gupta & another vs. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti & others etc. (Civil Appeal No.3084-3088 of 2022), Satwati Deswal vs. State of Haryana: (2020) 1 SCC 126, State of Haryana & others vs. Piara Singh & others: (1992) 4 SCC 118, Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab & others: (2007) 13 SCC Page 16 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 17 292, Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing cum-
processing Society Ltd. Vs. Workman Pratap Singh : 2019(2) SCC 743, The State of Rajasthan & others vs. Dayalal & others: (2011) 2 SCC 429 and Secretary, the State of Karnataka & others vs. Umadevi & others: (2006) 4 SCC 44. These decisions are relevant for regularization. In some cases, there is observation for considering regularization and in some other cases, the mode of regularization has been discussed.
26. In the context of the present case, the series of decisions as referred above, cannot aid this Court to decide the objections as raised by the appellants against the impugned judgment.
27. Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has also referred to State of Orissa & another vs. Mamata Mohanty : (2011) 3 SCC 436 where the apex court in a completely different context has observed that the rule of law inhibits arbitrary action. Arbitrary action is liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above board, but should also be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fairness in the process or Page 17 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 18 established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order would vitiate. The decision-making process has to be, in those cases, interfered with.
28. According to Mr. Dalei, learned counsel, the learned Single Judge having taken note of the mode of appointment and renewal of engagement along with hike in remuneration and above all, the decision-making process while taking the decision of not extending the contractual period of the respondent No.1, has correctly declared the action of the appellants as arbitrary and contrary to the resolution of the Executive Council as extracted above. Learned Single Judge has discarded the plea that non-renewal is non-stigmatic. This is the reason why the learned Single Judge has observed that the decision contained in the communication dated 17.10.2022 is in gross violation of natural justice. Mr. Dalei has contended strenuously that the appointment in the post of the Finance Officer is the substitution against the termination of the respondent No.1. He has also stated that the said non-renewal is nothing but termination. Therefore, Clause-6 will apply stricto sensu.
29. It is apparent on the face of record that for termination of the respondent No.1 the appellants have not complied the mode as described in Clause-6 of the terms & conditions as referred before. According to Mr. Delei, for the above reasons, the entire action of the Page 18 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 19 appellants offends the provisions of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he has urged this Court not to interfere with the impugned judgment. At the fag end of his submission, Mr. Dalei has submitted before this Court to emphatically look at the pitiable situation in which the respondent No.1 has been thrown. The decision of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference for the above reasons.
30. We have meticulously examined the records and the decisions as relied by the counsel for the parties and also appreciated the submission of the counsel. In our considered view, the only question which is paramount in this appeal is as follows:
Whether Clause-2 or Clause-6 of the terms & conditions of the basic engagement order dated 14.10.2016, Annexure-4 to the writ petition would apply in respect of non-extension of the services of the respondent No.1 as the Assistant Finance Officer ?
31. Having perused the order dated 14.10.2016 and the order dated 04.11.2019, Annexure-5 to the writ petition read with the employment advertisement No.NLUO/T-NT/001002/2015, part of Annexure-2, we are of the view the nature of engagement which the respondent No.1 had accepted without demur is purely contractual and as such, the said engagement shall be guided by the terms & conditions of the contract. Page 19 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 20
32. It is apparent that the tenure of the respondent No.1 had expired on 18.10.2020 and he had been relieved from the duty on 19.10.2020 at 9 a.m., as gathered from the communication dated 17.10.2020. This is not a case of termination during the tenure of the engagement and as such, Clause-6 of the said terms & conditions cannot have any relevance. The inference as drawn pre-supposing the present case as a case of termination by the learned Single Judge is fraught with serious error. Several observations and directions including the direction to reinstate the respondent No.1 with back wages and also with interest and penal interest as consequence of inference on termination are unsustainable.
33. Mr. Dalei, learned counsel has strenuously argued that the records relating to the decision-making process has not been placed before the Court nor has it been disclosed to the respondent No.1. In this regard, we must place our observation that unless there is prima facie material to demonstrate that the action as taken is malafide or under the veil, there is ill-faith, then only the Court would like to examine the decision- making process. In the matter of relieving someone after the tenure of engagement comes to an end, even the Constitutional Court does not Page 20 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 21 have any jurisdiction to intervene nor does it have any duty either to lift the veil or to examine the decision-making process.
34. According to us, the order dated 17.08.2020, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, is an order simplicitor only recording that the tenure of engagement has come to an end and therefore the respondent No.1 is to be relieved from the duty. Such action of the appellants cannot be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. So far as the question of regularization is concerned vis-à-vis the agenda item No.7, we are of the view that this Court cannot be the arbiter of performance of the respondent No.1. It is the employer alone who can carry out such test, if the employer has any plan to regularize any contractual employees on the basis of performance, as has been done while taking the resolution against the agenda item No.7.
35. As we have already noted, the law is well settled that the assessment of performance falls within the exclusive domain of the employer and the Court has no business to interfere with or to intrude into the said domain. We do not find any infirmity in the process as elaborately noted at the time of recording the submission of the counsel and the observations of the learned Single Judge. The cumulative effect of such observations is that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Page 21 of 22 WA No.723 of 2022 22
36. In the result, we set-aside the judgment dated 10.05.2022 delivered in W.P.(C) No.33209 of 2020.
37. The appeal is allowed.
38. Before parting with the records, we may like to observe that if in future vacancy arises against the post of Assistant Finance Officer, the petitioner be allowed to participate for appointment in the said post.
39. No order as to cost.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
Savitri Ratho, J. I agree
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 7th August, 2023/Subhasis Mohanty, P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: P.A. I/C Secretary
Reason: Authentication Page 22 of 22
Location: High Court of Orissa, WA No.723 of 2022
Cuttack.
Date: 11-Sep-2023 19:57:31