DHRUBA CHARAN DUTTA PRABHUDAYAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the four writ applications are directed against the judgment and order dated 4.7.2001 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack passed in O.A. No. 39(C) of 1997. Since all the four writ applications arise out of the same judgment of the Tribunal, they were taken up together for hearing.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 5 in O.J.C. No. 1112 of 2001 is the applicant before the Tribunal. She filed the original application challenging selection of all the petitioners to the posts of Junior Stenographers in the District Headquarters of Mayurbhanj on the ground of violation of statutory provisions relating to constitution of Board of Examiners and requisition of names from the Employment Exchange as well as violation of reservation provision as provided in the O.R.V. Act. The Tribunal initially by judgment dated 2.9.1998 allowed the application. Challenging the same, three writ applications were filed before this Court vide O.J.C. Nos. 15525, 16906 and 14200 of 1998. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid three writ applications on 20th April, 1999 observed that notice had not been served on some of the petitioners before the original application was taken up for hearing and, therefore, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for rehearing. Thereafter, all the parties appeared before the Tribunal and the impugned judgment was passed confirming the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal in allowing the application of the opposite party No. 5.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 5 who appeared in person supported the order of the Tribunal on the ground that apart from contravention of the provisions of O.R.V. Act as found by the Tribunal, it will be seen that some of the petitioners had secured '0' in the written test and, therefore, the Tribunal took cognizance of the same and held that since those petitioners were not qualified to be selected having secured '0' in the written test, a fresh selection should have been made and accordingly directed for holding a fresh selection. So far as reservation is concerned, it was contended by the opposite party No. 5 that even if seven posts are available in the district, three posts were vacant in the office of the Subarnarekha Irrigation Project itself and all the three posts available in the said office could not have been reserved which amounts to 100% reservation.