DR. SHIBA PRASAD SATPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the order/judgment of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench dated 18.10.2001 rejecting the Original Application for annulling the seniority list published by the State Government (Annexure-6 to the Original Application) and in holding that the gradation list prepared by the State Government is in consonance with law.

(2.) The undisputed facts as disclosed from the pleadings of the parties and as disclosed from the relevant file, which was called for by us and produced by the learned Addl. Government Advocate are briefly stated as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the Supreme Court in his letter dated 15.10.92, informed the Secretary that since the case has finally been disposed of, the petitioner's service should be regularized forthwith in teaching cadre with effect from 26.3.83 or otherwise, it will amount to deliberate violation on the part of the State of disregard the order of the Supreme Court. The Deputy Secretary, without application of mind and on the basis of the letter of the learned counsel for the petitioner moved for regularizing the service of the petitioner with effect from 26.3.83, the date on which the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in Pediatric Surgery on ad hoc basis for one year and thereafter went for higher studies, M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery at the state cost being deputed from his parent cadre of Assistant Surgeon. The petitioner could not have been deputed to undergo higher studies while serving as a Junior Teacher in Pediatric Surgery on ad hoc basis for a period of one year, nor any lien could be given in such an ad hoc appointment. The petitioner could only be given and as rightly granted lien for his parent substantive cadre of Assistant Surgeon. The Government notification dated 23.8.93 was issued giving appointment on ad hoc basis with effect from 26.3.91 in suppression of the earlier letter dated 9.8.91. The inter se seniority of the petitioner was directed to be done in due course. The Apex Court in its interim order dated 24.4.1989 clearly directed that the petitioner shall be given the appointment for which he has been selected in case a vacancy in that category is available.