SARITA DEI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant-Petitioner Sarita Dei in O.A.No. 525 (C) of 2016 which is re-numbered as WPC(OAC) No. 525 of 2016 after abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal has sought for to quash the order dtd. 10/10/2015 passed by the Superintendent Engineer, Cuttack(R and B) Circle at annexure-1 whereby the representation of the applicant-Petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk-G was rejected and further consequential relief to direct the Respondents-Opposite Parties to consider her case for appointment to the post for which she is eligible according to her education and training qualification.

(2.) The background facts are that the Petitioner completed the course of Apprentice training in Clerk-G in the Office of Executive Engineer R and B Division, Jagatsinghpur (O.P. No.3) during the period of 30. 02.1989 to 12/2/1990. According to the Petitioner, after completion of training, although she was eligible for an appointment as Clerk, but her application was not considered and she went on representing to the authority for consideration of her case to the said post, but invain and finally she approached the tribunal in O.A. No.2147(C) of 2015 which was disposed of on 17/8/2015 with direction to O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 to consider her grievance by treating the contents of O.A. and its annexure as her representation and dispose of the same within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the aforesaid order, but O.P. No.2 by way of his Office order No.180/2015/1799 dtd. 10/10/2015 at annexure-1 disposed of her representation by rejecting it and the Petitioner, thereby, again approached the tribunal in the present OA which was transferred to the High Court after abolition of the tribunal in the present case.

(3.) In the course of hearing of the present case, Mr. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner was eligible to be absorbed as Clerk-G on completion of her Apprentice training in the establishment of O.P. No.2, but without any rhyme and reason, the case of the Petitioner was not considered for a substantial long period despite the Petitioner having made numerous representation. Mr. B.K. Pattnaik, by referring to the representation made by the Petitioner at annexure-3 series and the letter of Director of Apprentice training/Central Apprentice Advertiser/Secretary Central Apprentice counsel at annexure-6 submits that O.P. No.2 ought to have considered the case of the Petitioner for her absorption to a post for which she was eligible, but the Opposite Parties arbitrarily had not considered the case of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that one similarly situated candidate namely Anjali Barik had been extended the benefit of appointment as a tracer by an order of Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.19849 of 2011, but the present Petitioner has been deprived of her right to be observed for any post commensurate to her eligibility. In summing up his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in U.P. State of Road Transport Corporation and another Vrs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others; JT 1995 (2) S.C.26 to extend the benefit of appointment to the Petitioner.