LILI LATA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Writ Petition has come up before this Court being filed by Petitioner -Lili Lata Sahoo seeking to challenge the order of termination of her appointment as Junior Stenographer vide Order Dated 29th January, 2005 (Annexure -3), whereby the Learned District Judge, Kandhamal -Boudh, Phulbani, directed for termination of Petitioner's service with effect from 31.01.2005 since her appointment was held to be illegal. Mr. Aswini Ku. Mishra, Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was recruited as Junior Stenographer in the Judgeship of Kandhamal -Boudh at Phulbani vide Office Order No. 3409 dated 02.08.2002 & the Petitioner joined the said job on 05.08.2002. It is further submitted that thereafter the Petitioner has been transferred & posted in different Sub -ordinate Courts under the same Judgeship. While working as such on 21.08.2004, Petitioner received a show cause notice (Annexure -1) calling upon her to show cause as to why her services shall not be terminated since it was alleged that the Petitioner has neither been selected as Junior Stenographer in the competitive examination held on 18.03.2001 nor her name finds a place in the merit list prepared on 19.06.2001. In the said show cause notice, it was further alleged that the Petitioner was illegally appointed by the then District Judge, Phulbani in violation of Rule 6 of the Orissa District & Subordinate Courts Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Services) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1969').

(2.) SRI Mishra, Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that in any event, Petitioner having joined the service & performed her duties to the best satisfaction of the authorities from time to time; therefore show cause notice issued & reply of the Petitioner thereto, if found to be deficient, a disciplinary proceeding could have been initiated against the Petitioner. In stead, order of termination has been issued which is violative of Rules governing the services of Government servants & therefore the same is non est in the eye of law. Further, Mr. Mishra drew our attention to the enquiry report (Annexure -4) conducted by a Hon'ble Judge of this Court, who was Administrative Judge in -charge of the concerned district & submitted that the same would show that the allegations made against the Petitioner and/or the District Judge, who issued the appointment order is favour of the Petitioner, were incorrect & baseless.

(3.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties; considered their respective submissions; perused the pleadings made & documents annexed thereto.