Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
B B Mohapatra vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 4 March, 2021
T.A. No. 24/2016 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH TA No.24 of 2016 Present: Hon'ble Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. C. V. Sankar , Member (A)
1. Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Mohapatra, aged about 44 years, S/o Kailash Chandra Mohapatra, resident of village - Khandi Mangalpur, P. S. - Delanga, District - PURI, presently residing at Plot No. 1219, Nayapalli, Gada Sahi, P.S. Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, District - KHURDA.
.......Applicant.
VERSUS
1. Regional Medical Research Centre (ICMR), represented through Director, At-Nandankanan Road, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, District - KHURDA.
2. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), represented through its Director, Ansari Nagar, Post Box No. 4508, NEW DELHI - 110029.
......Respondents.
For the applicant : Mr. K. P. Mishra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. S. Behera, Advocate.
Heard & reserved on :29.01.2021 Order on :04.03.2021
O R D E R
T.A. No. 24/2016
2
Per Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)
1. The WP (C) No. 16495/2014 was transferred from Hon'ble High Court of Odisha vide order dated 07.04.2016 and numbered as TA 24/2016. The brief of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant is that this is fourth round of litigation after the applicant was removed from the service vide office order dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure A/3). The applicant has filed this TA after the respondents passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure A/8) after Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 21.08.2013 in WP (C) No. 18436 of 2013 had directed the respondents "We therefore, direct the OP No. 1 Director Regional Research Centre (ICMR), Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar to consider the representation of the petitioner by taking note of the assertion of the petitioner that Ratnakar Pradhan, who was working as Driver in the said office has expired in the meantime. The petitioner's case may be considered for being appointed for the said post of Driver. The representation if not disposed of, shall positively be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the O.P. No. 1 by the petitioner". The applicant submitted that Respondent had in their order dated T.A. No. 24/2016 3 30.06.2014 asked him to get his name sponsored through agency namely Commando Security Service for appearing in the interview/test. Hence he has filed this TA with the following prayers:
a) Quash the order, dated 30.06.2014 under Annexure A/8 and thereby direct the opp. Parties to absorb/reinstate the petitioner in the available vacancy considering his past experience;
b) Pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice.
2. The respondents in their counter inter alia averred that the applicant was initially selected as temporary driver vide letter dated 03.08.2001(Annexure B) for short term under Extramural time bound project "intervention program for Cholera and Vitamin - A deficiencies and scabies amongst some primitive tribes of Orissa" with terms and conditions that his service was co-terminable along with project and there will be no liabilities of ICMR and RMRC for further continuance in service after closing of the project. The applicant was terminated along with 14 others vide letter dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure B). The respondents submitted that few others were engaged were as per requirement in the project and much before the applicant filed writ petition. Respondents submitted T.A. No. 24/2016 4 that the applicant along with other candidates was considered for selection for the post of driver in another project but his name was found at Sl. No. 3 hence not appointed. The respondents submitted that the post which is lying vacant cannot be filled up as per instruction dated 18.11.2013 (Annexure C) issued by Respondent No. 2 that the post relating to work which has already been outsourced such as sanitation/clearing/transport/security will not be filled up in future. The respondents further submitted that as per direction of Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 24.03.2013, the representation of the applicant was disposed of vide letter dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure D). The respondents submitted that the applicant suppressed the said fact of his representation being disposed when he filed another writ petition WP (C) No. 18436/2013 and after order of Hon'ble High Court dated 21.08.2013 (Annexure E) in WP (C) No. 18436/2013 the respondents communicated the earlier order dated 05.8.2013 to the applicant. The respondents submitted that the applicant was intimated as per policy decision of ICMR to get his name sponsored through outsourcing agency for appearing in the interview but he has not applied and has challenged the same in this TA. T.A. No. 24/2016 5
3. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through their pleadings and materials on record.
4. As seen from Annexure A/2 the appointment letter dated 03.08.2001 in favour of the applicant was under a project titled "Intervention Programme for Cholera & Vitamin -A tribal population of Orissa". The applicant was to get consolidated pay as per ICMR Rules applicable for extramural project. It was specifically mentioned in the said appointment letter that it is co-terminable with the project. It has been pleaded by the respondents that the said project was completed on 31.01.2005 and the said project is no more in existence. Therefore, continuation of the applicant as driver in the said project does not arise. The applicant had filed Writ Petitions WP (C) No. 9057 of 2005 disposed of on 30.08.2005 vide Annexure A/4, WP (C) No. 5289 of 2013 disposed of on 25.04.2013 vide Annexure A/5 and WP (C) No. 18436 21.08.2013 vide Annexure (7). His representation dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure A/7) has been rejected by the respondent department vide Annexure A/8 dated 30.06.2014. The applicant was engaged from 11.06.2001 to 31.01.2005, thereafter he has not been engaged by the respondents. In the circumstances the claim made by the applicant that he may be absorbed in any other vacant post as driver is not permissible since he was not earlier engaged T.A. No. 24/2016 6 through any recruitment process by appearing in any written examination or interview along with any other person. As per principle decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Secretary State of Karnataka & others versus Umadevi & others (2006) 4 SCC 1 decision, the applicant is not entitled to any absorption or regularization in any vacant post since the project under which he was earlier engaged is no more in existence and the applicant is no more under service of the respondents since 31.01.2005 and according to the said judgment no such backdoor entry is permissible.
5. In the circumstances the TA being devoid of merit is dismissed but in the circumstances without order to cost.
(C. V. SANKAR) (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) (csk)