ଘଟଣାକ୍ରମ:
୧) ଓଡିଶା ଲୋକସେବା ଆୟୋଗ (OPSC) ଦ୍ୱାରା ୨୦୧୨ ମସିହାରେ ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇଥିବା ସଚିବାଳୟ ଏଏସ୍ଓ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ (Advt 08/2012-13) ଆଧାରରେ ପରୀକ୍ଷା କରାଯାଇ ୮୧୧ ପଦବୀ ପାଇଁ ଚୁଡାନ୍ତ ତାଲିକା ତା.୧୦.୦୯.୨୦୧୬ ରିଖରେ ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇଥିଲା। (ଚୁଡାନ୍ତ ତାଲିକା)
୨) ପରବର୍ତ୍ତୀ ସମୟରେ ସ୍ୱରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ବିଭାଗ ତରଫରୁ ତା୦୫। ୧୦। ୨୦୧୬ ଦିନ ସମସ୍ତଙ୍କୁ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପତ୍ର ପ୍ରଦାନ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା।
୩) ଏହି କ୍ରମରେ, ଶ୍ରୀ ଦିନବନ୍ଧୁ ମୁଣ୍ଡା (Sl.786) ମଧ୍ଯ ତା୦୧.୧୧.୨୦୧୬ ରିଖରେ ଚାକିରୀରେ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ଏବଂ ଏପର୍ୟ୍ଯନ୍ତ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟ କରିଆସୁଛନ୍ତି।
୪) କିନ୍ତୁ ଆଶ୍ଚର୍ୟ୍ଯଜନକ କଥା ଯେ, ତା ୨୫।୦୭।୨୦୧୭ ରିଖ ଦିନ ଓପିଏସସି ତରଫରୁ ନୋଟିସ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ST- Male Category ର ସବୁଠାରୁ ଶେଷରେ ଥିବା ଶ୍ରୀ ଦିନବନ୍ଧୁ ମୁଣ୍ଡା ଙ୍କୁ ଚାକିରୀ ରୁ ହଟାଇ ଦିଆଗଲା। ଅପର ପକ୍ଷରେ ଅନ୍ୟ ଜଣେ ପରୀକ୍ଷାର୍ଥୀ ଶ୍ରୀ ଅଭିଳାଷ ଭୋଇଙ୍କୁ ଅଧିକ ମାର୍କ ରଖିଥିବା ଦର୍ଶାଇ ଏଏସଓ ପଦବୀରେ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ଦିଆଯାଇଥିଲା। (ନୋଟିସ ନଂ ୪୭୭୮ ତା୨୫-୦୭-୨୦୧୭ରିଖ)
୫) ଏଣୁ ଶ୍ରୀ ମୁଣ୍ଡା ବାଧ୍ୟ ହୋଇ ଅଦାଲତର ଆଶ୍ରୟ ନେଇଥିଲେ। ମାନ୍ୟବର ଟ୍ରିବୁନାଲ ତା ୧୧.୦୮.୨୦୧୭ରିଖରେ ଉପରୋକ୍ତ ନୋଟିସ ଉପରେ ରହିତାଦେଶ ଜାରି କରିଥିଲେ।
୬) ଇତି ମଧ୍ୟରେ ମାନ୍ୟବର ଉଚ୍ଚ ନ୍ୟାୟାଳୟ (WPC(OAC) 2105/2017) ଶୁଣାଣି ଶେଷ କରି ତା ୧୦.୦୪.୨୦୨୩ ରିଖରେ ଚୁଡାନ୍ତ ରାୟ ପ୍ରଦାନ କରି ଓପିଏସସି ଦ୍ୱାରା ଜାରି ନୋଟିସ (ତା ୨୫.୦୭.୨୦୧୭) କୁ ରଦ୍ଦ କରି ପୂର୍ବରୁ ମେରିଟ ଲିଷ୍ଟରେ ଥିବା ଶ୍ରୀ ଦିନବନ୍ଧୁ ମୁଣ୍ଡା ଙ୍କୁ ଚାକିରୀ ଜାରି ରଖିବାକୁ ରାୟ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି। ତେଣୁ ଓପିଏସସି ମଧ୍ଯ ଏହି ଆଦେଶ ବଳରେ ନିଜର ପୂର୍ବ ନୋଟିସ ରଦ୍ଦ ହେଲା ବୋଲି ଜଣାଇଛି।
୭) ସୂଚନାଯୋଗ୍ୟ, ଉକ୍ତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟାରେ ଓପିଏସସି ତା୧୬ ମଇ, ୨୦୧୯ ରିଖରେ, ଅନ୍ୟ ଦୁଇ ଜଣ (ଶ୍ରୀ ମନୋଜ କୁମାର ଖଟୋଇ ଓ ଶ୍ରୀ ସୁଧୀର ରଞ୍ଜନ ସାହୁ) ଙ୍କୁ ମେରିଟ ଲିଷ୍ଟରୁ ବାଦ୍ ଦେବାପାଇଁ ନୋଟିସ ଜାରି କରିଥିଲା। ଶ୍ରୀ ଖଟୋଇ ଏବେ ଅନ୍ୟ ଏକ ଚାକିରୀରେ ଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିବା ବେଳେ, ଶ୍ରୀ ସାହୁଙ୍କ ମାମଲା କୋର୍ଟ ରେ ବିଚାରାଧୀନ ଅଛି।
୮) ସେହିପରି ଅନ୍ୟ କିଛି ମାମଲାରେ ମାନ୍ୟବର ଅଦାଲତଙ୍କ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶରେ ସ୍ୱରାଷ୍ଟ୍ର ବିଭାଗ ତରଫରୁ ତା ୧୦.୦୬.୨୦୧୯ ରେ ଜଣେ ଏବଂ ତା୧୧.୦୫.୨୦୨୦ ରିଖରେ ୩ ଜଣ ନୂତନ ପରୀକ୍ଷାର୍ଥୀଙ୍କୁ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପତ୍ର ପ୍ରଦାନ କରାଯାଇଛି।
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No.2105 of 2017
Dinabandhu Munda …. Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties
Mr. R.N. Mishra,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.04.2023
Order No 05 :
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 25.07.2017 issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission under Annexure-7.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that after facing due recruitment process and on being found suitable, the Petitioner was appointed as an Asst. Section Officer in the Odisha Secretariat Service (Group-B) vide order dated 05.10.2016 issued under Annexure-5. It is contended that in terms of the said order, the Petitioner joined in the service on 01.11.2016. However, it is contended that while continuing as such, the order of appointment so issued in favour of the Petitioner on 05.10.2016 when was cancelled vide the impugned notice dated 25.07.2017. The Petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal in OA No.2105(C ) of 2017. The Tribunal while issuing notice of the matter vide order dated 11.08.2017 passed an interim order by staying the operation of the impugned notice dated 25.07.2017.
4.1. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that by virtue of the interim order, the Petitioner was allowed to continue in that post and he is also continuing till date. Mr. Das also contended that the order of appointment so issued in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled vide the impugned notice under Annexure-7 on the ground that one Abhiram Bhoi when was found to have secured more marks than the Petitioner, in order to accommodate the said Abhiram Bhoi, the order of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled. However, it is contended that in the meantime basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.33586 of 2018, Sri Abhiram Bhoi has been appointed as against the post of ASO vide order dated 11.05.2020 under Annexure-9 to the rejoinder. It is contended that since the petitioner has no fault with regard to his selection and appointment as against the post of ASO vide order at Annexure-5, the impugned notice cancelling such appointment under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that since the Petitioner iscontinuing since his initial date of joining and in the meantime, he had rendered service for more than 6(six) years, in view of the decision of the of this Court in the case of Bikash Mahalik vs. State of Odisha & Others, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit as prayed for. This Court in Para 8 and 28 of the judgment has held as follows:
8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner appeared in the written test and secured 234 marks out of 400 marks and also secured marks in practical skill test out of 50. Opposite party no.3 prepared a select list taking into account marks secured in the written test as well as practical skill test and placed the petitioner at Sl. No.2 of the merit list. Subsequently, opposite party no.2 found out that marks secured in the practical skill test, being qualifying in nature, should not be added to the marks secured in the written test. Consequentially, he directed opposite party no.3 to redraw the final merit list on the basis of marks secured by the petitioner in the written test i.e. 234 marks excluding the marks secured in the practical skill test, in which the petitioner had qualified by securing 31 marks, which is above the qualifying mark of 15, out of 50 marks. But fact remains pursuant to merit list prepared by opposite party no.3, the petitioner has already joined and his service book has been opened. The amount towards GIS has been deducted from his salary and he has also been enrolled in the contributory pension scheme of the Government. As a result, a right has been accrued in his favour to continue in his post. Now, after lapse of one year / months, as per direction given by opposite party no.2, opposite party no.3 has redrawn the merit list and called upon the petitioner to show-cause why he shall not be removed from service. Whether such action of opposite party no.3 is hit by principle of estoppel, is the short question to be decided in the facts and circumstances of this case.
xxx xxx xxx
28. In view of the law and fact, as discussed above, the irresistible conclusion is that the show-cause notice dated 31.03.2015 under Annexure-13 issued by opposite party no.3, the letter dated 09.02.2015 under Annexure-13/1 issued by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1 and letter dated 26.03.2015 under Annexure-13/2 issued by the Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department to opposite party no.2 cannot sustain. Therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. Pursuant to interim order passed on 07.04.2019 by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal since the petitioner is still continuing, he shall be allowed to continue with all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.”
5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned A.G.A on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that the Petitioner though was duly appointed as against the post of ASO vide order at Annexure-5, but while complying order passed by the Tribunal so passed in the case of Abhiram Bhoi, it was found that Sri Abhiram Bhoi because of his wrong placement in the merit list, was not given the benefit of appointment at the initial stage. On subsequent verification when it was found that Shri Bhoi is placed above the Petitioner in the merit list, the impugned notice was issued by cancelling the appointment of the Petitioner. Therefore, it contended that there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to the impugned notice in cancelling the order of appointment, so issued in favour of the petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the other candidate Sri Abhiram Bhoi has been appointed in the meantime vide order dated 11.5.2020 under Annexure-9 to the rejoinder and the petitioner since is continuing as before in terms of the interim order passed on 11.08.2017, it is the view of this Court that Sri Abhiram Bhoi has been appointed as against a vacant post. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bikash Mahalik, as cited supra, this Court is inclined to quash the notice dated 25.7.2017 under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs the opp. Parties to allow the Petitioner to continue as before.
The Writ Petition accordingly succeeds and
disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment