NARESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a driver under the Collectorate, Boudh, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 9/9/1998 under Annexuer-5, by which his appointment as driver has been withdrawn. He further seeks to quash the order dtd. 22/12/2009 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1675 of 1998 under Annexure-7, by which the original application filed by him has been dismissed, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to appoint him as driver and grant all consequential service and financial benefits w.e.f. 9/9/1998.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, having passed class-VIII and also possessing driving license of light vehicle, registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Boudh. In the year 1995, Collector, Boudh sent a requisition to the Employment Officer, Boudh to sponsor the name of eligible candidates to be considered for appointment as driver. Accordingly, the Employment Officer, Boudh sponsored the name of the petitioner, along with other eligible candidates, to face the recruitment test to be appointed as driver against the vacancies under administrative control of Collector, Boudh. Pursuant to call letters issued by the Collector, Boudh, the petitioner appeared in the recruitment test and was selected, along with seven other candidates, for appointment to the post of driver in various offices in the district of Boudh depending on the actual vacancies. In the select list, the name of the petitioner found place at sl.no.8 and, as such, the select list was valid for a period of one year or till publication of result of the next recruitment test for drivers for Boudh district, whichever is earlier. But the tenure of the said select list was extended by the opposite party no.3, as the select list could not be exhausted in due time despite clear vacancies. Out of the said select list, one Hemanta Kumar Panda was appointed on 2/11/1995, Dhirendra Kumar Jena was appointed on 14/2/1996, Satya Narayan Sethi was appointed on 4/10/1997 and Niranjan Guru was appointed on 6/10/1997. Similarly, on 15/9/1997, one Sanjeeb Kumar Pattnaik was appointed and his name was also sponsored to DFO (T) Boudh for appointment against any substantive post.

(3.) Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner, having been selected by following due process of selection and having given regular appointment, his appointment could not have been withdrawn by the order impugned dtd. 9/9/1998 under Annexure-5. As such, the tribunal, while considering the case of the petitioner, has failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner was appointed regularly and, therefore, any withdrawal of such appointment, is contrary to the provisions of law and violative of principles of natural justice. Thus, it is contended that the tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of record by dismissing the original application. Consequentially, he seeks for quashing of same.