RAJENDU MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Writ at the instance of petitioner seeks to quash the order passed on 18/6/2010 by O.P. No.2 in appeal petition dtd. 30/1/2008 (at Annexure-9) as well as the order of disengagement/termination issued by the O.P. No.6 on 31/3/2001 under Annexure-6.

(2.) The factual matrix as involved in this case are that in the year 1997, there were four vacancies consisting of two posts of Trained Graduate Teacher TGT Arts, one post of TGT Science and one post of Hindi Teacher in Saraswati High School under N.A.C., Khariar Road in the District of Nuapada and in order to fill up such vacancies, application were invited from intending candidates having requisite qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner having qualification of M.A.B.Ed. with valid University Employment Exchange card applied for the post of TGT Arts along with other candidates and thereafter, pursuant to an interview, she came out successful along with O.P. No.7. Accordingly, O.P. No.5 issued an appointment order to the petitioner on 17. 09.1997 against the vacant post of TGT Arts on a consolidated salary of Rs.1200.00 per month on ad-hoc basis for the period of 44 days and the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time by different appointment orders, but while continuing as such, the petitioner came to know that the services of Hindi Teacher and O.P. No.7, were regularized by O.P. Nos. 5 and 6, notwithstanding to the fact that the petitioner had stood first in the selection process. Feeling discriminated, petitioner submitted representation to O.P. Nos. 5 and 6 through the Headmaster of the School for regularization of her service and enhancement of salary, but instead of taking any positive action on her representation, O.P. No.5 all of a sudden terminated her service by issuing disengagement order on 31/3/2001 under Annexure-6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged such order before this Court in O.J.C. No. 4190 of 2001, which was disposed of on 18/1/2008 granting an opportunity to the petitioner to prefer an appeal and thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before O.P. No.2 for the relief as claimed in the Writ, but after much persuasion including an order from this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18366 of 2009, O.P. No.2 disposed of the appeal on 18/6/2010 vide Annexure-9 refusing to quash the order of termination of the petitioner from service as well as directing to regularize her service. It is stated that in the appeal, the claim of the petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that the post in which the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis was reserved for ST Candidate as well as her name was not being sponsored by Employment Exchange. The petitioner challenges such findings of the O.P. No.2 in this Writ.

(3.) In the course of argument, Mr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner stood first in the selection process, the authority instead of regularizing her service has regularized the service of the O.P. No.7, who was less meritorious than the petitioner, but when the petitioner challenged her illegal termination from service, O.P. No.2 rejected her claim on the ground that the post in which the petitioner was appointed was in fact reserved for ST Candidate and her name was not sponsored by Employment Exchange, which is contrary to the fact, since Annexure-3 by which the petitioner was appointed w.e.f 4/11/1997 reveals that she stood first in the selection process and thereby; even if, out of two posts of TGT Arts, one post must be reserved for General Candidate and the petitioner having stood first selection process was to be preferred to the Unreserved post, then O.P. No.7 who stood next to the petitioner in the selection process and the claim of the O.Ps. was that the post of TGT Arts was reserved for ST Candidate was erroneous because it revealed from Annexure-11 that the post of TGT Science (CBZ) was meant for ST Candidate. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Lenka has prayed to allow the Writ by quashing Annexure-6 and 9 and directing for regularization of service of the petitioner w.e.f. the date of her termination.