Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was appointed on 01.12.2017 as a Contractual Computer Engineer in the High Court of Orissa through an Outsourcing Agency, namely, SISL Infotech Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner was discharging his duties with due diligence and providing service in networking, software and hardware maintenance and all other IT related works, as were being assigned to him by the administration of the High Court of Orissa. On the basis of his long standing experience and overall domain knowledge of the High Court, on 19.12.2019, he applied for the post of System Analyst in the High Court of Orissa, which was lying vacant since long. On consideration of the same, he was appointed in the post of System Analyst, vide office order dated 20.12.2019 under Annexure-1, in // 3 // which it was stipulated that the appointment was subject to verification of all the certificates along with his character and antecedents in the manner prescribed by the Government and in case his certificates, character and antecedents were not found correct/satisfactory, he would be removed from Government service immediately without any notice. In terms of such order of appointment, the petitioner was to remain in probation for a period of two years from the date of his joining the service, and that the appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing during the period of probation, without prior notice, including extension of such period. Pursuant to the said appointment order dated 20.12.2019, the petitioner submitted his joining report. While he was continuing in service, on 07.01.2020, opposite party no.2 communicated a letter of termination to the petitioner under Annexure-2. Even though the petitioner submitted representation, the same was rejected vide order dated 10.02.2020. Thereafter, // 4 // though the petitioner filed representations on 04.05.2020 and 03.07.2021 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, but the same were not acceded to. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Mohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of termination in Annexure-2 dated 07.01.2020 having been passed without assigning any reason, the same has to be quashed. It is further contended that the reasons, which have been assigned subsequently by way of filing counter affidavit, cannot sustain in the eye of law. Consequentially, he seeks for quashing of the order impugned.

4. Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties contended that since appointment of the petitioner was made irregularly, meaning thereby, no advertisement was issued for filling up of the post of System Analyst in the Court's establishment, question of applying for the post does not // 5 // arise. It is further contended that upon consideration of the representation dated 19.12.2019 filed by the petitioner, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to appoint the petitioner provisionally against the permanent post of System Analyst of the Court on relaxation of the process of direct recruitment. Therefore, appointment order dated 20.12.2019 was issued vide Annexure-1. Consequentially, the petitioner joined in the Court's Establishment on 23.12.2019. But as per the provisions contained in Orissa High Court (Appointment of Staff and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019, eligibility criteria for System Analyst are B.E./B.Tech. Degree in Computer Science/I.T. or M.C.A. or M.Sc. Degree in Computer Science with first class or equivalent position from a recognized University/Institution having minimum three years of experience in Programming/Software Development. The said post was to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. But the petitioner was never appointed through the process of direct recruitment. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner was terminated by the // 6 // competent authority. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority. More so, the petitioner was engaged through NICSI's empanelled vendor SISL Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and he could not show any performance with relation to software development and/or programming as System Analyst. Thereby, action was taken by terminating his services, as the appointment of the petitioner was totally illegal and irregular. Consequentially, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

15. True it is, the impugned order of termination does not contain any reason, much less the good and sufficient reasons, as required under Clause-1 of the order of the appointment under Annexure-1. But the reasons for terminating the service of the petitioner have been indicated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties at paragraphs-4 and 5, which are extracted hereunder:-

"4. That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraphs-1 to 6 of the Writ petition, it is // 16 // submitted that no advertisement was issued for filling up one post of System Analyst in the Court's Establishment. Since no advertisement was ever issued for filling up one Post of System Analyst, question of applying for the Post Pursuant to Advertisement does not arise. The Petitioner had not applied for the same.
However, upon consideration of the representation dtd. 19.12.2019 filed by the petitioner (Annexure- A), Hon'ble the then Chief Justice was pleased to appoint the petitioner - Shri Jyoti Ranjan Pradhan provisionally in the permanent post of System Analyst of the Court on relaxation of the process of direct recruitment. Accordingly, the Appointment Order / Office Order dtd. 20.12.2019 was issued vide Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. The Petitioner joined as System Analyst on 23.12.2019 in the Court's Establishment. It is reiterated that neither any advertisement was issued for filling up the Post of System Analyst nor the Petitioner applied pursuant to any advertisement nor any selection process was conducted for filling up the one Post of System Analyst.