ଚୁକ୍ତିଭିତ୍ତିକ ଭିଲେଜ ଏଗ୍ରିକଲଚର ଓ୍ୱାର୍କର ( ଗ୍ରାମ୍ୟ କ୍ରୁଷି କର୍ମୀ) ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପାଇଁ ୦୪।୧୦।୨୦୧୩ ରେ ବଲାଙ୍ଗୀର ରେଞ୍ଜ କ୍ରୁଷି ଉପନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶକ ଜାରି କରିଥିବା ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି ଓ ଏହି ଆଧାର ରେ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠିତ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା କୁ ମାନ୍ୟବର ହାଇକୋର୍ଟ ରଦ୍ଦ କରିଛନ୍ତି।
୧୮।୦୫।୨୦୦୮ : ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଜିଲ୍ଲାର ଭିଏଡବ୍ଲୁ ପଦବୀ ପୂରଣ ପାଇଁ ରାଜ୍ୟ କ୍ରୁଷି ଓ ଖାଦ୍ୟ ଉତ୍ପାଦନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶକଙ୍କ ଦ୍ବାରା ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି ପ୍ରକାଶ।
୧୪।୦୮।୨୦୦୮ : ଉକ୍ତ ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତିକୁ ଚ୍ୟାଲେଞ୍ଜ କରି ହୋଇଥିବା ଆବାଦନ (W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2008) ର ଶୁଣାଣି କରି ସଂଶୋଧିତ ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି ପ୍ରକାଶ ପାଇଁ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶ।
"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The advertisement in Annexure-2 is quashed to the aforesaid extent. The O.Ps are directed to issue a corrigendum to this effect and fix the last date of application afresh”.
୦୫।୧୨।୨୦୦୮ : ଉକ୍ତ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶ (issue of corrigendum) ପାଳନ ନ କରି ଜିଲ୍ଲା କ୍ରୁଷି ଉପନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶକ ଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସାନି ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି ପ୍ରକାଶ।
୦୩।୦୨।୨୦୧୨ : ଉକ୍ତ ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତିକୁ ଚ୍ୟାଲେଞ୍ଜ କରି ହୋଇଥିବା ଆବାଦନ (W.P.(C) No.18492 of 2008 and batch) ର ଶୁଣାଣି କରି ବୟସ ସୀମା ସଂପର୍କିତ ଆବେଦନ ଗୁଡିକୁ ବିଚାର କରିବାକୁ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶ।
9. So far as the age of the petitioners in respect of W.P.(C) Nos.18942 of 2008, 18594 of 2008, 18943 of 2008, 18492 of 2008 and 113 of 2009 is concerned, it is open for the petitioners to approach the authorities in this regard, who shall consider the same looking to the fact that advertisement to the post of VAW has not been made for last seventeen years.
୦୪।୧୦।୨୦୧୩ : ରାଜ୍ୟ କ୍ରୁଷି ଓ ଖାଦ୍ୟ ଉତ୍ପାଦନ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶକ ବୟସ ସୀମା ସଂପର୍କିତ ଆବେଦନ ଗୁଡିକୁ ନାକଚ କରିବା ସହିତ corrigendum issue ନ କରି କ୍ରୁଷି ଉପନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶକ ଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସାନି ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି ପ୍ରକାଶ ।
୦୩।୦୮।୨୦୨୩ : ଉପରୋକ୍ତ ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି କୁ ଚ୍ୟାଲେଞ୍ଜ କରି ହୋଇଥିବା ସମସ୍ତ ଆବେଦନ ର ଶୁଣାଣି ଶେଷ ଓ ରାୟ ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ।
୧୩।୧୧।୨୦୨୩ : ୨୦୧୩ ମସିହା ବିଜ୍ଞପ୍ତି ଓ ନିଯୁକ୍ତି ପ୍ରକ୍ରିୟା ରଦ୍ଦ ତଥା ଆବେଦନକାରୀଙ୍କୁ ଏକ ମାସ ମଧ୍ୟରେ ୫ ଲକ୍ଷ ଟଙ୍କା ଲେଖାଏଁ କ୍ଷତିପୂରଣ ଦେବାକୁ ନିର୍ଦ୍ଦେଶ।
WPC(OAC) Nos.3792, 3989 & 3990 of 2013
W.P.(C) No.17908,18283 & 18285 of 2023
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
--------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:31.07.2023 and Date ofJudgment:13.10.2023
--------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. All these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the advertisement issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir on 04.10.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Village Agricultural Worker (VAW) on contractual basis in the Revenue District of Bolangir. Further prayer has been made to quash the order passed by the Director of Agriculture & Food Production on 25.10.2013 in rejecting the claim for relaxation of the age and to direct the Opp. Party No.2 to issue a corrigendum in terms of the order passed by this Court in its judgment reported in 2008(2) OLR (Sudhir Kumar Sahu vs. State of Odisha) and subsequent order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18594/2008. Since the issue involved in these batch of writ petitions is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
10.4. Since the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 was issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture in respect of respective districts including the District of Bolangir, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-5(5) of the 1981 Rules, placing reliance on the decision in the case of (1998) 8 SCC-266 (Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad & Others, (2021) 6 SCC-707 (Opto Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank & Others) & Civil Appeal No.4807 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of 2019) (Union of India & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh) as per the considered view of this Court Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bolangir is not competent to issue such advertisement. Since as provided under Rule-5(5), the Director of Agriculture and Food Production is required to issue the advertisement and in the instant writ petitions the impugned advertisement has been issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture Bolangir Range on 04.10.2013, this Court placing reliance on Rule-5(5) of the Rules is of the view that the impugned advertisement dtd.04.10.2013 has been issued by an incompetent authority and that too without issuance of a corrigendum by the Director of Agriculture to the advertisement dtd.18.05.2008.
10.5. Therefore, this Court in view of such material irregularity in the advertisement dtd.04.10.2013, is inclined to quash the same. In view of such quashing of the advertisement any selection process undertaken in terms of the said advertisement is also quashed. Since because of the admitted latches on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in not issuing a corrigendum on the face of the order passed by this Court on 14.08.2008 and 03.02.2012, the Petitioners in all these cases could not get a chance to participate in the selection process and in the process lost their livelihood, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Harapriya Nanda as cited (supra), this court directs Opposite Party No.1 to pay compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each to each of the Petitioners. The compensation as directed be paid within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 13th of October, 2023
Judgement Dt.13.11.2023
No comments:
Post a Comment