ARATI MALLIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks to challenge the letter dtd. 25/7/2016 issued by opposite party no.1, whereby her representation for being considered for appointment as Teacher Educator was rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Asst. Teacher working at Padampur Nodal U.P. School under BEO, Balasore. On 8/5/2011, an advertisement was published by opposite party no.2 inviting applications for in service candidates for filling up 116 posts of Teacher Educators in the State. The petitioner applied for such post. A total number of 172 candidates were selected and merit list was prepared in which the petitioner being successful, her name found place at serial no. 151 of the said list. The said select list was published on 22/2/2013. However, no appointment was made till 13/5/2014. When the opposite party no.1 directed the opposite party no.2 to go ahead with the appointment subject to certain stipulations relating to keeping certain posts vacant pursuant to orders passed by this Court and the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal, 96 in-service candidates joined, while 11 posts were kept vacant being involved in litigation and 5 posts were kept vacant for non-availability of candidates of S.T. category and thus, 112 posts were filled up in all. The remaining 4 posts were to be filled up from the merit list. Since the petitioner reasonably expected of being absorbed against the vacancies, she submitted a representation on 18/5/2015 to the opposite party no.1, who in turn sought clarification from the opposite party no.2 as to if the 4 posts were included in the fresh advertisement issued in the year 2015. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 clarified that from the merit list, 4 candidates including the present petitioner being selected to be appointed, their cases were recommended to the Government for allowing them to attend counselling and accordingly sought for instructions of the Government. In response, the opposite party no.1 clarified that no panel or select list is applicable after lapse of one year and that the 4 candidates have neither any claim nor are they part of selection anymore and hence the question of sponsoring them for counselling does not arise. Further the opposite party no.2 was asked to clarify as to how the candidature of the 4 candidates was kept alive for four years and why were these vacancies not included in the advertisement issued in the year 2015. The opposite party no.2 vide letter dtd. 20/8/2015 explained the circumstances in which the four posts had been kept vacant and not included in the advertisement made during the year 2015 to the effect that two candidates were appointed but they did not report for duty and two candidates were called for counselling but did not turn up and accordingly necessary permission was sought for from the Government for other four candidates in order of merit to attend counselling and since there was correspondence in this regard with the Government from time to time, the four posts were not included in the advertisement made during the year 2015. The petitioner approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 656 of 2016 and by order dtd. 8/4/2016, the learned Tribunal directed the opposite party no.1 to consider and dispose of the grievance of the petitioner within a period of one month. Pursuant to such order, the opposite party no.1 vide order dtd. 25/7/2016 enclosed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, held that as the candidature of the candidates was recommended after lapse of nine months from the date when the selection process started when steps had already been taken to make appointment against the advertisement made in the year 2015, the proposal for calling the 4 candidates for counselling against the advertisement made in the year 2015 would have created further complicacies in the appointment process and therefore, their candidature was not considered for counselling. It is stated that the opposite party no.2 issued appointment letter to the candidates from 16/6/2014 onwards which continued up to 12/8/2014 and therefore, the select list of 172 candidates ought to have been valid up to 15/6/2015. So, while the ground of lapse of one year was not made applicable in respect of 96 candidates, the same was made applicable in respect of 4 candidates even though their names were recommended within nine months from the date of selection process. Accordingly, the petitioner again approached the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. No. 684 of 2019 with prayer to quash the order under Annexure-8 and to direct the authorities to appoint the petitioner as Teacher Educator with seniority and other benefits. The said O.A. has since been transferred to this Court and registered as the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter has been filed by opposite party no.2 stating the relevant facts which are basically matters of record, but it has been clearly stated that due to non-joining of some appointees and non-participation in counselling by some selected candidates, 4 posts were not filled up in 2014. It is also admitted that the names of 4 candidates including the petitioner was recommended for counselling to be appointed as in-service Teacher Educator but as the Government clarified that no panel or select list is applicable after lapse of one year, the 4 candidates including the petitioner have neither any claim nor are they part of selection process anymore and hence, the question of sponsoring them for counselling does not arise. The opposite party no.2 has also filed an affidavit on 21/4/2022 specifically stating that at present four numbers of Teacher Educator posts are lying vacant in DIET, Odisha and there is a chance to increase the number of vacancy subject to approval of the Government.