SAUMYA RANJAN PARIDA Vs. CHAIRMAN, PARADIP PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner questioning the appointment of opposite party No.5 Bijoy Laxmi Mohapatra as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the Electrical and Mechanical Department of Paradip Port Trust had approached this Court twice by filing two writ petitions registered as O.J.C. No. 15479 of 1998 as well as O.J.C. No. 4835 of 1999. While disposing of O.J.C. No. 15479 of 1998 this Court by its order dated 30.11.1998 directed the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 to consider the case of the present petitioner for appointment in consonance with the circular dated 23.3.1983 issued by the Government of India which was relied upon by the State Government in its circular dated 27.4.1988. Pursuant to such direction of this Court, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the opposite parties 1 to 4 but of no avail. Being disappointed, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing writ petition registered as O.J.C. No. 4835 of 1999 which this Court disposed of by judgment dated 25.6.2010 directing the present opposite party No.1 namely, the Chairman Paradip Port Trust, to call for the entire recruitment file and after perusing the same and the representation of the petitioner pass a reasoned order. Pursuant to such direction, the present petitioner filed a representation vide Annexure-4 before the Chaiman Paradip Port Trust, Paradip but the same was rejected. Thus, being aggrieved with such order of the Chairman Paradip Port Trust, the petitioner has approached this Court again challenging the propriety of the appointment of opposite party No.5 and to declare the same as illegal and also to declare the selection process as bad and illegal. The further prayer of the petitioner is to give direction to the opposite parties 1 to 4 to appoint him as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) with effect from the date the opposite party No.5 got appointment.

(2.) The undisputed fact reveals that Paradip Port Trust had placed requisition with the Employment Officer, Special Employment Exchange Paradip Port in the year 1998 for sponsoring names of ten eligible candidates having passed the H.S.C. examination in first division as well as diploma level examination or any higher qualification in Mechanical/ Automobile Engineering. The name of the present petitioner along with 13 other qualified candidates were sponsored pursuant to the request of the Paradip Port Trust. The petitioner thereafter was called upon to attend the interview. According to the petitioner he attended the interview and his performance was quite satisfactory but to his utter surprise though he had all the requisite qualification and had undergone the apprentice training under Paradip Port for one year but in an arbitrary manner the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 appointed opposite party No.5 which is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) The opposite parties 1 to 4 have filed their counter affidavit wherein it is their stand that the Staff Selection Committee on the basis of overall performance of the candidates who were called to appear at the interview, selected opposite party No.5 to be appointed for the post of Jr. Engineer (Mechanical). Such selection was made in conformity with the rules and therefore the selection process and especially the order passed by opposite party No.1 which is a speaking order cannot at all be challenged on the ground of malafide or arbitrariness. Accordingly, the opposite parties 1 to 4 have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.