MANORANJAN PATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-12-1976 (Annexure-4) by which he has been relieved of his duties from the post of Head Clerk in Baripada wing of Balasore-Mayurbhanj Major Settlement and has been repatriated to his parent organisation, namely, the District Office, Balasore. The main grounds of attack are as follows:-

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions raised in the writ petition, it is necessary to find out the circumstances under which the petitioner had been appointed to the Settlement Organisation. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Balasore Collectorate on 1-7-1948 and was promoted to Junior Upper Division Clerk on 10-4-1961. He was confirmed in the post of Lower Division Clerk on 26-12-1964. Thus he was a confirmed hand in the Bala-sore Collectorate. On 6-3-1965 he was temporarily appointed as Head Clerk in the Baripada wing of Bala-sore-Mayurbhani Major Settlement and from 1965 till his date of repatriation in 1976, he continued in the Settlement Organisation. The order of appointment of the petitioner in the Settlement Organisation has been annexed as Annexure-1. The nature of appointment and the status of the petitioner under Annexure-l would govern the fate of this case. While the petitioner asserts that the appointment under Annexure-l was made on the basis of a selection and is a case of direct recruitment to the post of Head Clerk, in the return made to this Court by opposite parties 1 to 4, it has been averred that the said appointment was purely on a temporary basis since there was no able hand to man the post in the Settlement Organisation It has been further pointed out that the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Clerks and Assistants in the District Offices and Offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1963 having come into force with effect from 15-4-1963 and the recruitment to different posts including the post of Head Clerk being regulated by the Rules, direct recruitment to the post of Head Clerk by a selection was incompetent. Under the said statutory rules, the only way of filling up a post of Head Clerk was in accordance with Rr. 9 (c) and 10 and since the procedure provided thereunder had not been followed and the recruitment of the petitioner was purely as temporary measure, the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent organisation.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner is a confirmed hand of the Balasore Collectorate. He held, lien in his parent cadre. Under the Statutory Rules, he was not entitled to be posted as a Head Clerk in the Settlement Organisation. In this view of the matter, appointment of the petitioner under Annexure-l cannot be anything more than as contended by the opposite parties, on a purely temporary basis. The petitioner therefore cannot claim a right to the post of Head Clerk in the Settlement Organisation. The order of repatriation to his parent cadre (namely Balasore Collectorate) is innocuous and, therefore no illegality can be said to have been committed in passing the said order of repatriation. We would accordingly reject the contention of the petitioner that the repatriation of the petitioner under Annexure-4 amount to termination attracting Art. 311 of the Constitution.