GYANARANJAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case clearly demonstrates how justice is 'hijacked' because of a palpable wrong order made by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal which is vested with the power for adjudication of dispute arising out of service matters.

(2.) FACTS : The petitioner is a Senior Tassar Assistant (STA in brief) in the Directorate of Textiles and Handloom, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. The Director of Central Sericulture Research and Training Institute, Mysore in his letter dated 18.6.2002 requested the Additional Director of Textiles, Orissa to sponsor eligible candidates for selection to admission to two -years M.Sc. in Sericultural Technology course for the academic year 2002 -2004. The Director of Textiles and Handloom, Orissa in his letter No. 11348 dated 29.6.2002 (Annexure -1) informed the Principal Secretary to Government of Orissa, Textiles and Handloom Department that one Sumanta Behera (opp. party No. 5) and the petitioner have been selected for the aforesaid course and sought for Government approval in the matter. The Government in the Departmental letter No. 3495 dated 8.7.2002 (Annexure -2) approved the proposal selecting Sumanta Behera (opp. party No. 5) and the petitioner for admission to the course. Accordingly, the Deputy Director in the Directorate letter No. 11852 dated 10.7.2002 (Annexure -3) forwarded the applications filled in by the said Sumanta Behera (opp. party No. 5) and the petitioner to the Director, Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute (in brief C.S.R.T.I.). Mysore. The Director, C.S.R.T.I, by E. mail message dated 29.7.2002 informed the petitioner that he is provisionally selected for the course and advised him to join in the institute on 12.8.2002. At this stage, opposite party No. 4 filed O.A. No. 1102 of 2002 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') challenging the sponsoring of Sumanta Behera (opp. party No. 5) and the petitioner for the course on the ground that they are junior to him and as per the decision of the Government senior most employee should be sponsored for the purpose. On 11.7.202 the Tribunal took up the matter and found that opposite party No. 4's application suffers from the vice of non -joinder of necessary party inasmuch as the candidates who have been selected for admission to the course have not been made parties and gave liberty to the counsel for the applicant (opp. party No. 4) to take necessary steps for impledment of Sumanta Behera (opp. party No. 5) and the petitioner as respondents 3 and 4 in the case. Instead of awaiting any steps to be taken in the matter of impledment of parties, the Tribunal disposed of the matter by the impugned order dated 11.7.2002 (Annexure -6) by sending the paper -books of the case to the Government to look into the grievances of the opposite party No. 4 (applicant) and communicate its decision within ten days. The State Government in its turn sponsored the name of opposite party No. 4 and dropped the name of the petitioner in its letter No. 3849 dated 30.7.2002 (Annexure -8).

(3.) LET us first examine the validity of the order dated 11.7.2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1102 of 2002 which was filed by opposite party No. 4. The Tribunal rightly noticed that the prayer made by opposite party No. 4 cannot be considered because in his application he had not impleaded the selected candidates Sumanta Behera (opp. party No. 6) and the petitioner as parties. For non -joinder of necessary party, the application was liable to be rejected at the threshold. The Tribunal, however, gave liberty to opposite party No. 4's counsel to take steps for impleadment of necessary parties. That was a judicial discretion which was duly exercised by the Tribunal. But it fell into immediate error in disposing of the application by directing the State Government to take decision in the matter and communicate the same to opposite party No. 4. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal should not have adopted that course. It ought to have awaited impleadment of necessary parties and after hearing all concerned, it could have disposed of the matter in the manner it did. This grave error committed by the Tribunal has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure -6 is vulnerable and is liable to be quashed.