Orissa High Court
Kadambini Samantaray And Others vs State Of Orissa And Others on 15 September, 2017
Author: S. N. Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
W.P. (C) Nos.9965, 10347, 10376, 10383, 10302,10381, 10385
& 10348 of 2010
In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
---------
Kadambini Samantaray & others (in W.P.(C) No.9965/2010)
Subhashree Nayak (in W.P.(C) No.10347/2010)
Sanjulata Sahoo (in W.P.(C) No.10376/2010)
Pratima Biswal (in W.P.(C) No.10383/2010)
Mamatamayee Sahoo (in W.P.(C) No.10302/2010)
Kalpanamayee Nayak (in W.P.(C) No.10381/2010)
Pratima Sahoo (in W.P.(C) No.10385/2010)
Puspanjali Rout (in W.P.(C) No.10348/2010)
............. Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Orissa & others (in all the cases)
.............. Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : M/s. Asim Amitav Das, A.K. Behera, B.K.
Parida, B. Sahoo, S. Ray (in W.P.(C) No.9965 of 2010)
M/s. Prafulla Ku. Mohapatra, S.K. Nath, S.C.
Sahoo.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. B.P. Tripathy (A.G.A.)
R. Acharya, S. Mishra, P. Parida.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment : 15.09.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
S. N. Prasad, J.In these batch of writ petitions since the common question is involved, as such the same has been directed to be heard together, hence are being disposed of with common order.
The prayer made in these batch of writ petitions is to declare the action of the authorities is illegal by which their agreement has been decided not to be renewed for rendering service as Addl. A.N.M.
2. Facts of the case is that the petitioners have been appointed in pursuance of the advertisement published by the authorities to participate in Walk-in-Interview. The eligibility conditions prescribed therein that the candidates must have passed the H.S.C. examination and must have undergone 1½ year training for multipurpose health (F) at the approved Government Training Center. The petitioners although were not got their training from the approved Govt. Training centre but they have made their applications. The authorities on consideration of their candidature of the candidates have permitted to participate them in the selection process, have found that the candidates getting training from the approved Govt. training centre were not available as per the required vacancies, hence decided to induct these petitioners who have got the training from the private institutions.
3
The petitioners have been engaged and started discharging their duties on entering into an agreement but after completion of the period of agreement the authorities have decided not to renew the agreement since they are ineligible candidates as per the advertisement which contains a eligibility conditions obtaining training from multi-purpose health (F) at the approved Govt. training center and accordingly they have been separated from service.
3. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the action of the authorities on the ground that the petitioners have been allowed to discharge their duties and as such the authorities when found that they are satisfactorily discharging duties, it is improper on their part to dispense with the service merely on account of the fact that they have not got training from the Govt. approved training center.
Further case of the petitioners is that they are still continuing their service by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court and as such they may be allowed to continue in service.
4. Opposite parties have filed counter affidavit and contested the case by submitting that the appointment of the petitioners is purely on contract for a period of one year and after completion of the said contract 4 period, it is up to the authority to renew or not to renew, depending upon the satisfactory performance and the eligibility conditions.
He further submits that at the time of inducting into service since the candidates got training from the approved Govt. training centre was not available, hence the authorities have inducted them in service but subsequently it was found that their entry in service are illegal i.e. contrary to the eligibility conditions provided in the advertisement, hence the higher authorities has directed not to renew the contract period and accordingly the contract period has not been renewed.
The action of the authorities cannot be said to be unjustified since the petitioners have got no legal vested right to remain in service considering the nature of service and admittedly they are not fulfilling the eligibility conditions.
So far as the contention of the petitioners is that they are continuing in service, they submits that merely on account of this fact, no legal vested right has been accrued upon the petitioners rather it is settled position of law that if a candidate is not possessing required eligibility as provided in the recruitment rules or the advertisement they have got no right to remain in service.
5
In view of such submission, prayer made in the writ petition have been said to be meritless.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
5. The fact which is not in dispute in these cases that a notice was published inviting applications to participate in Walk-in-Interview for the post of Addl. ANM, the candidates were required to pass H.S.C. examination and must have undergone 1½ year training for multipurpose health (F) at the approved Govt. training centre. Further admitted position in these cases is that the petitioners are not training holder from the approved Govt. training centre. The authorities at the time of initial recruitment, has inducted them into service and they entered into an agreement to render service for a period of one year as per the nature of appointment and accordingly they have been engaged and started discharging their duties.
The higher authorities when came to know that these candidates are not possessing eligibility conditions as per the eligibility conditions provided in the advertisement, they have decided not to renew the contract period.
6
6. The petitioner at that juncture has approached this Court by way of these instant writ petitions wherein interim order has been passed by virtue of the same they are continuing.
7. The issue fell for consideration is that as to whether the petitioners have got legal vested right to continue in service by issuing writ of mandamus upon the authorities to renew the period of contract that too when they admittedly are not possessing the required eligibility conditions as per the advertisement. The settled position of law is that candidates who intends to induct in service must possess required eligibility either as per the recruitment rule or the advertisement.
Here in this case, eligibility conditions provided in the advertisement under Annexure-1 which contains the post of Additional ANM must have passed the HSC examination and must have undergone 1½ year training for multipurpose health (F) at the approved Government Training Center. The eligibility conditions therein from the advertisement is mandatory requirement.
8. The petitioners admittedly have not got their training from the approved Govt. Training Center rather from the private institutions but the authorities ignoring this aspect of the matter have inducted them in service and allowed them to continue in service. The higher authorities after 7 knowing this fact they are illegally been engaged in service and allowed to continue, have issued direction upon the subordinate authority not to renew the contract.
9. The nature of appointment herein is totally on contract depending upon the terms and conditions of the agreement, when there is an agreement to discharge duty for a period of fixed period the employee working by virtue of the said agreement has got no legal vested right to ask the employer to allow them to continue in service as a matter of right that too when they are not possessing the minimum required eligibility conditions.
10. It is also settled proposition of law that a candidate too possess minimum required eligibility conditions and if the eligibility conditions is not being possessed, and as such type of employee appointment is said to be illegal and as such type of employee is not entitled to hold the post even the post which is permanent in nature, in order not to perpetuate illegality, but here the post is contract of one year subject to renewal from year to year.
11. In view of such facts and circumstances, it is the considered view of this Court that writ of mandamus cannot be issued upon the State 8 authorities in the facts and circumstances of the cases as stated herein above.
12. The petitioners have also taken a ground that they are continuing in service by virtue of interim order passed by this Court but interim order has been passed during pendency of the writ petition which would depend upon the final outcome of the pending litigation and merely on the ground of interim order, if they are continuing that does not entitle them to hold the post.
In view of facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered view of this Court, these writ petitions lack merit.
Accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed.
........................
S. N. Prasad, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th September, 2017/RRJena