PANCHANAN BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure-13) passed by Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.326(C) of 2010 for quashing of the orders dated 21.12.2009 and 12.01.2010 passed by the State Government as appearing at Annexures-7 and 12 respectively in the writ petition and further prayed for direction to2 opposite party no.1-State of Odisha to appoint the petitioner in the promotional post of O.F.S.-II with all consequential service benefits within a stipulated period of time.

(2.) As the matter stood thus, in spite of unwillingness by opposite party no.3 to join the post of O.F.S.-II the authority issued direction to the opposite party no.3 to join the new post by 08.01.2010 vide order dated 21.12.2009 as appearing at Annexure-7 to the present writ petition. The petitioner further claimed that in the meanwhile following the conditions in the office memorandum dated 28.08.1999 as appearing at Annexure-8, the vacancy, on account of non-joining of the opposite party no.2 should have gone to the next eligible and suitable employee. He further claimed that the opposite party no.2 on his volition expressed his unwillingness to join O.F.S.-II cadre on 16.03.2009. He had foregone the promotion for all time to come and there was no option left with him to withdraw such undertaking of foregoing promotion / appointment to O.F.S.-II. The State Government on appearance, submitted that the Government had5 decided to give institutional training to the newly appointed candidates in O.F.S.-II and as the training of 67 newly appointed O.F.S.-II was going on, there was no scope for imparting training of the officers appearing from the waiting list. So there has been no discrimination by giving appointment to respondent nos.2 and 3. It is further submitted by the opposite party-State before the Tribunal that the name of the applicant was included in the panel of waiting list as per General Administrative Department Notification dated 09.07.2003 and under the circumstances the petitioner had no right for appointment to O.F.S.-II. Since, there was no vacancy at that point of time Government had no scope to give appointment to the petitioner.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the final order of the Tribunal dated 24.04.2014 in O.A. No.326(C) of 2010, the petitioner, i.e., the applicant before the Tribunal has preferred the present writ petition, as7 appears, confining his claim against opposite party no.2. The petitioner raises the following points for consideration :-