PRATAP BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above noted writ petitions are filed challenging to the order passed in a common judgment delivered by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on 2.8.2000 in Original Application Nos. 2511 (C), 2499 (C), 2484 (C), 2482 (C), 2500 (C), 2530 (C), 2537 (C), 2483 (C), 2536 (C), 2491 (C), 2501 (C) and 2492 (C) all of 1999. The order of the applicants in the Original Applications and the corresponding writ petitions have been maintained in the cause title serial - wise from the cause title of the impugned judgment, Annexure -5. All the writ petitions except W.P.(C) No. 8313 of 2004 are in the weekly list. Since that is a connected matter and to be disposed of alongwith this batch of cases, the said case record is called for and taken up for admission and disposal on consent of both the parties.

(2.) THE State being the Opposite Party in all the Original Applications, has filed W.P.(C) No. 6661 of 2002 against the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The said judgment has different Annexure numbers in different writ petitions.

(3.) THE writ petitioners (except the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6661 of 2002) were granted ad hoc appointment in Class -III or Class IV posts by the Chief District Medical Officer, Bhadrak (in short, 'C.D.M.O.) and such ad hoc appointment was subsequently regularised through a process of selection by the Selection Committee headed by the C.D.M.O. and later on the superior authorities annulled such orders of appointment on the ground that the recruitment was illegal and accordingly the C.D.M.O. was directed to cancel the appointments. The bone of contention of the applicants before the Tribunal was that cancellation of appointment amounts to termination of service and that could not be achieved by the Government without following due procedure of law in the concerned Service Rules by serving a show -cause notice and providing opportunity of hearing. The State Government, C.D.M.O. and other Officers appearing as the Opposite Party members had a common case and common show -cause. They put forth before the Tribunal the fact and circumstance and the illegal act of the then C.D.M.O. in undertaking a process of selection after making ad hoc appointment and without notifying the vacancy by inviting applications from interested persons. The State Government also defended the order of cancelling the appointments accordingly. After considering the contention of both the parties and taking note of the rules and G.A.Departments Resolution relating to the method of notifying the vacancy and the procedure for conducting the selection and the Chairman and Members thereof, the Tribunal held as follows :