Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

"The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, // 2 // issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/ mandamus and/or any other further writ/direction and quash the impugned order vide letter No. 2685 dated 27th Oct, 2023 issued by Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela / Opposite Party No.3 to conduct personal Interview once again under Annexure-1 and direct the Opposite Party/ N.I.T to complete the selection process pursuant to personal interview conducted vide Annexure-4.
"3. We fail to understand the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh // 15 // vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma [State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma, (2002) 1 SCC 113 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 104] . Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle Respondent 1 to claim for permanent employment. In that view of the mater, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by Respondent 1."

(1974) 1 SCR 165] , Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 :

1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] ."
(emphasis supplied) // 17 // 3.8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D. Dastagiri in Para 4 has held as follows:-
"4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 915 of 2000, in para 16 it is stated that the process of selection was cancelled at the last stage i.e. before publishing the list of selected candidates on the sole ground that the State Government wanted to introduce prohibition and obviously the Government felt that there was no need of Excise Constables during imposition of prohibition in the State. There is serious dispute as to the completion of selection process. According to the appellants, the selection process was not complete. No record has been placed before us to show that the selection process was complete, but, it is not disputed that the select list was not published. In para 16 of the counter-affidavit, referred above, the respondents themselves had admitted that the selection process was cancelled at the last stage. In the absence of publication of select list, we are inclined to think that the selection process was not complete. Be that as it may, even if the selection process was complete and assuming that only select list remained to be published, that does not advance the case of the respondents for the simple reason that even the candidates who are selected and whose names find place in the select list, do not get vested right to claim appointment based on the select list. It was open to the State Government to take a policy decision either to have prohibition or not to have prohibition in the State. Certainly, the Government had right to take a policy decision. If pursuant to a policy decision taken to impose prohibition in the State there was no requirement for the recruitment of Constables in the Excise Department, nobody can insist that they must appoint the candidates as Excise Constables. It is not the case of the // 18 // respondents that there was any mala fides on the part of the appellants in refusing the appointment to the respondents after the selection process was complete. The only claim was that the action of the appellants, in not appointing the respondents as Excise Constables, was arbitrary. In the light of the facts that we have stated above, when it was open to the Government to take a policy decision, we fail to understand as to how the respondents can dub the action of the respondents as arbitrary, particularly, when they did not have any right as such to claim appointments. In the absence of selection and publication of select list, mere concession or submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant State cannot improve the case of the respondents. Similarly, such a submission cannot confer right on the respondents, which they otherwise did not have."

4. To the submissions made by Mr. Sahu, Mr. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the selection process initiated under Annexure-2 attained finality after conduct of the interview with publication of the Panel vide Annexure-A/3 to the counter on 26.03.2015. In the said panel taking into account the total mark secured by the Petitioner; his position comes at Sl. No. 2. Since Sri Abinash Biswal, who was selected and appointed having secured the highest mark was terminated, in view of the provisions contained under Para 14 of the Advertisement under Annexure-2 coupled with the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5571 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No. 17493 of 2023, Petitioner is required to be appointed basing on his position in the panel so available at Annexure-A/3. Since the Panel vide Annexure-A/3 was prepared after due conduct of the interview in terms of the selection process prescribed in Annexure-2, // 20 // there is no occasion to go for a fresh interview to assess the merit and suitability of the Petitioner vis-à-vis Rashmi Ranjan Sahoo. 4.1. It is also contended that basing on Annexure-2, process of selection has been completed with publication of the Panel under Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit and no fresh interview can be conducted in terms of the impugned letter issued by the Institute under Annexure-1. It is also contended that it is the settled law that selection process has to be conducted in terms of the advertisement. In terms of Annexure-2 the interview has already taken place with due publication of the panel vide Annexure-A/3. Therefore, no fresh interview can be conducted, which runs contrary to the stipulation contained in the advertisement under Annexure-2. In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2015(II) OLR- 752 (Sasmita Manjari Das Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.).