STATE OF ODISHA Vs. SADASIBA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the State of Odisha and its functionaries have assailed the order dtd. 25/2/2016 passed in O.A. No. 1935 of 2013 under Annexure-2, by which the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar directed the State-petitioners to give promotion to opposite party no.1 to the post of Professor in Psychology from the date opposite party no.3 was promoted to the post of Professor in Psychology by allowing him all service and financial benefits till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31/1/2010. The Tribunal further directed to fix the pensionary benefits of opposite party no.1 accordingly and pay the arrear dues within a period of four months, and that in case of any delay beyond four months the arrear dues will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum and, as such, the Government may recover such interest amount from the officers for whose laches the delay has been caused.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC), pursuant to the requisition of the Higher Education Department, issued an advertisement inviting applications from the intending candidates for appointment to the post of Professor Psychology by way of selection, as per the Odisha Education Service (Professor Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990, as amended up to 2006. The interview was conducted by the OPSC on 24/9/2008, in which opposite party no.1 though attended but could not come out successful. Consequentially, on the recommendation made by the OPSC, opposite party no.3-Dr. Nibedita Jena was selected and appointed as Professor Psychology. But opposite party no.1 challenged such selection before the tribunal inter alia on the ground that Government in Higher Education Department did not submit his CCRs to the OPSC, as a result of which he was not selected for the post of Professor in Psychology and very junior to him, i.e., opposite party no.3 was selected ignoring the case of opposite party no.1.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-Petitioners vehemently contended that as per the Rules if selection was conducted on the basis of merit cum suitability and for the purpose of ascertaining the merits, the academic career, research degree, teaching experience, research publication and assessment of available CC Rolls were taken into consideration and on that basis the opposite party no.3 was selected, it cannot be construed that the case of opposite party no.1 was not considered for such selection. It is further contended that along with other names, the name of opposite party no.1 was also recommended and basing upon which he was called upon to appear in the interview, but he could not come out successful. However, subsequently the opposite party no.1 turned around and challenged the selection process. Thereby, at his behest, the original application filed by opposite party no.1 should not have been entertained by the tribunal. It is further contended that the allegation made that the CC Rolls of opposite party no.1 were not produced before the Commission and, thereby, there was no proper evaluation and the person junior to him was appointed as Professor in Psychology, is absolutely not correct. As a matter of fact, the CC Rolls of opposite party no.1 for the period from 2001-02 to 2005-06 were sent to the Commission by the Department of Higher Education, vide letter dtd. 30/8/2008, and on that basis the interview was conducted on 24/9/2008. Consequentially, the name of opposite party no.3 was recommended by the Commission to the post of Professor in Psychology. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority. As such, the order so passed by the tribunal cannot sustain in the eye of law.