PRADIPTA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, common question of fact and law being involved, on the prayer and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that the petitioners in all these writ applications are Graduate Engineers in Electrical discipline. They obtained their qualification between 1987 and 1996 and because of non availability of posts, they remained unemployed. The State Government considering the acute unemployment problem in respect of Degree Engineers in the State decided as many of them as possible should be given appointment as Stipendary Engineers in the Government Departments and Undertakings including the Corporations on a consolidated stipend of Rs. 2,000/ per month. An advertisement was issued on 18.6.1990 calling upon the unemployed Graduate Engineers to file applications for empanelment and effectual placement. In response thereto about 3300 applicants filed their applications. The Government in their resolution in Planning and Co ordinate Department dated 22.9.1990 decided the procedure to be adopted for discipline wise empanelment of the unemployed Engineers for appointment as Stipendary Engineers against the vacancies in different Government Departments and Undertakings, stipulating therein that 25% of the posts shall be filled up on merit basis and for that purpose equal number will be taken from each batch starting from the batch 1984 upto the batch of 1989.

(3.) ON 5.10.2001 the GRIDCO issued advertisement inviting application for recruitment to the post of Management trainee in Electrical and Telecommunication Engineering without mentioning the total number of posts. But however, according to the petitioners 300 posts were available to be filled in, but without considering the cases of the petitioners who are continuing without any employment and have been included in the panel are deprived of being absorbed by the GRIDCO by virtue of the advertisement which is the subject matter of challenge in all these cases. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the Advertisement issued by the opposite party GRIDCO of recruitment and for a direction to appoint the petitioners in terms of the Government resolution and the panel prepared by it.