NANDINI PRADHAN Vs. REGISTRAR (ADMN.), ORISSA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Basudev Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of termination dated 29.09.2004 and relive order dated 30.09.2004 under Annexure-5 and for a direction to opposite parties to reinstate her with all service and monetary benefits.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the learned District Judge, Kandhamal-Boudh, Phulbani pasted a notice in the Notice Board inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of different Class-IV posts and newly created posts in the new Courts in the said judgeship. The petitioner having fulfilled the eligibility criteria, applied for the post of peon in August 2002 and her application being found to be correct in all respect, she was called to the interview. Having been found suitable in the said test, the petitioner's name found place in the merit list of peon prepared by the District Judge and vide letter dated 23.08.2002, the District Judge appointed the petitioner in Class-IV post and posted her as peon in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Daringibadi and deputed to the District Court, Phulbani. While the petitioner was continuing as such, another District Judge issued a notice on 21.08.2004 vide Annexure-3 to show cause as to why she shall not be terminated from service on the ground that her appointment was illegal because she had not appeared at any recruitment test for appointment as Class-IV employee as per rule 71 of the G.R.C.O. (Civil), Vol-I. It is the further case of the petitioner that in accordance with Rule-71, the petitioner was enrolled as a candidate peon under the order of the Judge-in-charge, Nizarat and she was appointed against the vacancies. The contention of the petitioner is that she was found fit in the test conducted by the then Dist. Judge and her name finds place in the merit list and accordingly she was appointed against the post for the newly created Court. She denied the allegation that she had not appeared in any recruitment test for the said period. It is the further case of the petitioner that the then Dist. Judge who conducted test for recruitment of Class-III and Class- IV employees including the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet vide D.P. No.2/03. In charge Nos.7 to 10, it has been alleged that while giving appointment to the petitioner and others, the provisions contained under Rule- 73 of the G.R.C.O (Civil), Vol-I were violated and no test was conducted for the said post but subsequently he was exonerated and the proceeding was dropped.