GEETANJALI PATTNAIK Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BALASORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these three Writ Petitions have been filed on self-same facts claiming identical relief, they were heard analogously & are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of these Writ Petitions are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.6.2002, the District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, Balasore invited applications in plain papers from eligible candidates, Inter alia, to fill up five posts of Junior Stenographers In the judgeship of Balasore - Bhadrak out of which one was reserved for S.T., one was for S.T. (Woman) & three for General candidates. Pursuant to the advertisement, the Petitioners applied for the said post. After holding the interview & test, a merit list vide Annexure-2 was prepared in which the name of the Petitioners found Petitioners found place at serial No. 8, 7 & 15 respectively. After recruitment, appointment orders were issued to three general candidates & one S.T. candidate who joined the posts & within one year of selection & joining two general candidates left the job as a result of which next two selectees were appointed. As some vacancies arose because of the opening of the Fast Tract Courts, Satya Kumar Das & Geetanjali Patnaik, the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 9690 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No. 9692 of 2009 Sl. Nos. 7 & 8 of the Merit List (Annexure-2) by Order Dated 22.3.2003 (Annexure-5 to W.P.(C) No. 9690/2009) were appointed as Junior Stenographer for a period of one year on ad hoc & temporary basis & posted to work in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak & J.M.F.C., Bhadrak respectively. Similarly by Order Dated 1st of September, 2005 (Annexure-5) the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9691 of 2009 was appointed as Junior Stenographer on temporary & ad hoc basis for a period of one year & was pasted in the establishment of the S.D.J.M., Balasore. The period of their appointment stood extended from time to time & they are continuing as Junior Stenographer till date without any interruption. They made representation to the District Judge to regularize their ad hoc services which was rejected by Order Dated 17.6.2009 on the ground that since they were recruited under Special Scheme of the Government of Orissa envisaged under Home Department Notification No. 65681 dated 12.12.2001 purely on ad hoc & temporary basis, their services cannot be regularized. Hence, these Writ Petitions praying to quash the order of rejection & for a direction to the Opp. Parties to regularize their services.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opp. Parties more or less admitting the-factual aspects. Their specific stand is that since the Petitioners were appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis under Rule 5(3) of the Orissa District & Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Special Scheme) (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Services) Rules, 2001, (hereinafter referred to as the 2001 Rules) their services cannot be regularized. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per Rule, 1969, the advertisement was made for 5 posts i.e. S.T.1, S.T.(W) 1 & General-03. On regular basis four selectees, i.e. three general & one S.T were appointed & the post reserved for S.T.(W) was lying vacant as no candidate from that category was available. Within one year of selection & joining two general candidates left the job as a result, next two selectees were appointed & consequently up to Sl. No. 6 of the merit list vide Annexure-2 was exhausted & there was no chance for the Petitioner & others to be appointed & that was stopped there. By that time, the Rules 2001 had come into force. On the basis of the Rules, 2001, when some other vacancies occurred, the posting of the Petitioners were considered to be made by the District Judge. Accordingly, District Judge thought the Petitioners fit to be appointed as such but not from the merit list since the Petitioners have qualified in an examination without any further advertisement & previous advertisement was for limited posts, it was not possible to regularly absorb the Petitioners beyond the advertisement made under the Rules, 1969. It has been further stated therein in the counter that at present 8 posts of Junior Stenographers are lying vacant & the service of the Petitioners are not being counted & C.C.R is not maintained. Rule 2001 is synonymous (in pari materia) to the appointment Rules governing appointment of Fast Track Judges who cannot be regularly absorbed & the appointment Rules under both the Schemes are guided & governed by the recommendation of 11th Finance Commission. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that for some new vacancies, fresh advertisement has been published in the year 2009.