LINGARAJ GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though he has been appointed by the Presiding Officer State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, who is the competent authority, to a substantive post and after following due procedure of selection, has now been issued with a notice in pursuance to the impugned order issued by the Opposite Party No.1 requiring the petitioner to file his show-cause as to why his services shall not be terminated. The impugned order issued by the Opposite Party No.1 as well as consequential show-cause notice having been issued on the basis of a letter dtd. 10/4/2012 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, which has no application to the facts of the present case.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned order dtd. 16/8/2012 issued by the Opposite Party No.1 and the consequential notice dtd. 24/8/2012 issued by the Opposite Party No.2.

(3.) The factual back drop of the case, bereft of all unnecessary details, is that to fill up one vacant post of Peon in the office of the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 issued an advertisement on 5/4/2012. It is revealed from the said advertisement that the post which is sought to be filled up by the Opposite Party No.2 had fallen vacant due to promotion of the incumbent of that post. Therefore, it is pleaded in the writ petition that the post is sought to be filled up as the said regular post is having the budgetary sanction by the Finance Department and that filling up the vacancy in the said post is absolutely necessary for smooth functioning of the office of the Opposite Party No.2.