DR. SRINIVASA DEBATA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Review Petition No.100 of 2010, Misc. Case No.3 of 2011 has been filed by one Dr. (Smt.) Namitabala Barik, wife of Harekrishna Barik to implead her as O.P. No.17 in the review petition since she was one of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.8774 of 2009. Accepting the reasons mentioned in the Misc. Case that as she was one of the petitioners in the writ petition (supra), the order of which is sought to be reviewed, she being a proper and necessary party, is permitted to come on record. The petitioner counsel is directed to amend the memorandum of cause-title of the review petition. The AYUSH Doctors appointed pursuant to the advertisement No.18 (09/ 08) published by the National Rural Health Mission Directorate, NRHM, Orissa, (O.P. No.2) have filed Review Petition No.100 of 2010 for review of the order dated 21.4.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.8774 of 2009 and for a direction to O.P. No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners for renewal taking into consideration their performance by taking into account the various appraisal reports urging various facts and legal contentions. Review Petition No.2010 of 2010 has been filed with the similar prayer as made in Review Petition No.100 of 2010 for review of the order dated 21.4.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.8774 of 2009 with an additional prayer to pass any other order(s), direction(s), as deemed fit and proper urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) The common grounds urged in these review petitions are that the petitioners have been appointed as AYUSH Doctors on contractual basis pursuant to the advertisement No.18 (09/08) published by the National Rural Health Mission Directorate, NRHM, Orissa, (O.P. No.2) for the years 2007-08-09 respectively. The advertisement issued in 2007 and 2008 were acted upon in 2008 and after considering the respective merits of the candidates appointment orders were issued to the petitioners. However, in 2009 there was no advertisement but from the list prepared in the year 2008 the vacancies were filled up. It is stated that the opposite parties 12 to 16 had not come in clean hands. They have not filed the Annexure-2 in the writ petition in toto which is filed herein in toto The list of sanctioned posts category wise in the district was not there in the Annexure-2 filed in the writ petition. The terms and conditions were also not there. The same are to the following effect. Terms And Conditions

(3.) The aforesaid terms and conditions, being important aspects for just decision, were not brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.8774 of 2009 along with other writ petitions, passed the following order: