FAKIRMOHAN SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . MOHAPATRA, J. : - 1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs'.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed against the post of Junior Clerk -cum -Typist in P. S. Junior College, Colabira in the district of Jharsuguda. The said college has been notified to receive grant -in -aid on 1 -6 -94. The college being an aided educational institution, its employees are governed under the provisions of Orissa Education Act, 1969. The further case of the petitioner is that he and opposite party No. 4 pursuant to advertisement for appointment of Clerks had submitted applications. In the selection opposite party No. 4 was placed at serial No. 1 and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2. The opposite party No. 4 was appointed against the post of L. D. Clerk and he joined the post on 3 -8 -87 whereas the petitioner was appointed against the post of Junior clerk - cum -Typist and joined the post on 4 -8 -87. It is the case of the petitioner that even though opposite party No. 4 was appointed as L. D. Clerk, his name was recommended for approval against the post of Junior Clerk -cum - Typist as a result of which such recommendation was approved in favour of opposite party No. 4 even though the opposite party No. 4 at no point of time had been appointed either as Junior Clerk - cum -Typist or worked as such and accordingly approval of his appointment against opposite party No. 4 was selected for appointment against the post of Junior Clerk - cum - Typist (1st post), but unfortunately in his appointment letter it was mentioned as L. D. Clerk.

(3.) SHRI Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the prevalent yardstick at the time of appointment of the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 4,the college having the role I strength of 250 was entitled to appoint one U. D. Clerk, one L. D. Clerk and one L. D. Clerk -cum -Typist. It was further submitted that opposite party No. 4 having been placed in serial No. 1 of the select list was appointed I against the post of L. D. Clerk and the petitioner was appointed against the post of Junior Clerk -cum - typist. The management, however, subsequently manipulated the record to show that the opposite party No. 4 had been appointed against the post of Junior Clerk - cum - Typist and only after such manipulation in the record the name of opposite party No. 4 was recommended for approval. The contention on behalf of the opposite parties is that the appointment letter issued to the opposite party No. 4 inadvertently indicated his appointment against the post of L. D. Clerk instead of Junior Clerk -cum -Typist and therefore, at the time of joining of opposite party No. 4, the said mistake was rectified and the opposite party No. 4 was also directed to correct the joining report accordingly.