RABINDRA KUMAR SATAPATHY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite party.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts relevant to be recorded for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Computer Operator and Typist in the Criminal Court Campus, Cuttack for more than six years by then, responded to an advertisement issued on 16.01.2001, for filling up the post of Junior Clerks -Copyists in the judgeship of Cuttack -Kendrapara -Jajpur -Jagatsinghpur, by the District Judge, Cuttack, and offered his candidature. The process, however, thereafter was not furthered and it was after eight years there from, that a second advertisement dated 27.11.2009 was issued from the office of the District Judge, Cuttack -Kendrapara -Jajpur -Jagatsinghpur at Cuttack, initiating a fresh process for filling up various posts i.e. (1) Jr. Clerk -cum -Copyist and (2) Jr. Typist. The advertisement, inter alia, mentioned that the applications of candidates received earlier in pursuance of the advertisement published in 'Daily Samaj' on 16.01.2001 would not be taken into consideration and such candidates would have to apply afresh, if they fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the fresh advertisement. It mentioned further that there would be age relaxation of five years to the upper age limit of such candidates. The petitioner offered his candidature, pursuant to the advertisement of 2009, in the post of Junior Typist. Though subsequent thereto written examination in connection with the said process was scheduled to be held on 21.02.2010, he was not called to partake in the same. Situated thus, with a sense of deprivation, he had approached this Court seeking its remedial intervention.

(3.) MR . P.K. Rath has argued that as the advertisement of 2009 in clear terms mentioned that candidates who had applied earlier, pursuant to advertisement of 2001, would be entitled to age relaxation of 5 years, the action of the opposite party in holding him (petitioner) to be ineligible by denying the said benefit is wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and is thus liable to be adjudged as such.