PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ applications have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order Dated 22.6.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.33 of 2011 under Annexure - 5. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has set aside the selection held on 9.11.2010 for filling up of two posts of Indian Administrative Service ("IAS" in short) out of the officers of Non -State Civil Service ("NSCS" in short) and has further directed to conduct the selection afresh confining the same to all the officers including Opp. Party No.6 and thereafter' publish the select panel. The Petitioners in both the writ applications, who were impleaded as parties to the Original Application by way of intervention, have filed these writ applications challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal. Since in both the writ applications the selfsame order under Annexure - 5 has been challenged, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) THE undisputed facts which have been unfurled are as follows :

(3.) THE Opp. Party No.6 in. his counter affidavit contends that before nominating his name and the name Sri Sasanka Sekhar Panda, a report from vigilance angle was sought for by the parent department and in response to that the Government of Orissa in General Administration (Vigilance) Department intimated that no enquiry was pending against him (Opp. Party No.6), whereas adverse report from vigilance angle was received against Sri Sasanka Sekhar Panda. But, despite that their names were recommended by Opp. Party No.4 to Opp. Party No.2 along with other eligible NSCS officers. The further case of the Opp. Party. No.6 was that as against his name it was mentioned that "an issue based enquiry of awarding contract is pending". The Commission (Opp. Party No.2) on receipt such communication from Opp. Party No.4 sought for clarification whereafter Opp. Party No.4 excluded his name and sent nine names. This, according to Opp. Party No.6, was without application of mind and discriminatory, as similarly situated persons like Sasanka Sekhar Panda and Pradeep Kumar Biswal against whom vigilance enquiry was pending were recommended. Further, it is the case of Opp. Party No.6 that the Petitioners have no locus to file the writ applications as they are not necessary or proper parties. It is also his case that merely because the Petitioners' names were included in the list of eligible candidates that does not confer any right to be selected as such. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Tribunal committed gross illegality in allowing the Petitioners as intervenors in O.A. No.33 of 2011. Thus, according to Opp. Party No.6 the writ applications being devoid of merit should be dismissed and the findings of the Learned Tribunal and the directions contained in the impugned order are neither illegal nor unjustified.