SURENDRA PRASAD NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer to quash the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2714 (C) of 2007 vide Annexure -10 and to direct opposite parties 1 to 4 to appoint him as a regular Primary School Teacher under the District Inspector of Schools, Balasore -II, Soro as per the policy decision of the Government in School and Mass Education Department dated 19.8.1996 vide Annexure -1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without application of mind.

(2.) FROM the impugned order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, it reveals that the petitioner -applicant was appointed as NFE Instructor under Non -Formal Education Scheme on 21.6.1991 and he acquired CT qualification on 20.1.1994. While he was continuing as such, the State Government in School and Mass Education Department decided to absorb NFE Instructors/Supervisors as regular Primary School Teachers by Notification dated 19.8,1996 (Annexure -1). During 1997 a panel of such persons eligible for absorption was prepared where the petitioner -applicant was placed at SI. No. 49 and opposite parties 6 and 7, i.e. respondents 5 and 6 before the Tribunal were placed at SI. No. 3 and 9(W). Respondent No. 7 was not in the select list for absorption. According to the petitioner -applicant, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were included wrongly in the list and more particularly, respondent No.5, Gopal Charan Palai, who was reflected at SI. No. 8 was not entitled to that seniority in the select list and Respondent No. 6, Manjulata Sahu was placed at SI. No. 9 in a separate list meant for women instead of placing her in a combined list. The petitioner -applicant also contended that there were some defects in preparation of the list of candidates selected to be absorbed as NFE Instructors under Non -Formal Education Scheme.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner -applicant, who was placed at SI. No. 49 of the select list may not get the benefit of appointment, but when it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that there were some irregularities in preparation of the select list, the Tribunal instead of probing the same should not have brushed aside the allegation of the petitioner -applicant on the ground that removal of respondents 5, 6 and 7 will in no way give the petitioner -applicant the benefit of appointment. Accordingly, in our considered opinion the order passed by the Tribunal in Annexure -10 is an outcome of non -application of mind, We, therefore, set aside the said order of the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for re -hearing and for passing necessary orders on the allegation of the petitioner, The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.