PRITI RANJAN MAHARANA Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Research Officer in Action Research Centre, Ambura, filed this application seeking a direction to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to consider his case for promotion to the post of Lecturer from the date opposite party no.4 was promoted to the said post w.e.f. 27.02.1992 by quashing the letter dated 24.10.1994 (Annexure-11) rejecting his representation and for declaration that the promotion of opposite party no.4 vide Annexure-2 dated 27.02.1992 is improper, opposed to public policy and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since the appointment was made without holding any interview or following due procedure of law and further seeking to quash Annexure-3, the resolution passed by the authority and the subsequent advertisement vide Annexure-7, fixing M.E./M.Tech with 5 years teaching/field experience for appointment of Lecturer.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Water and Land Management Institute, Odisha (hereinafter referred to as 'WALMI'), was established by the Government of Odisha in the year 1985 and was registered as an autonomous registered Society under the Societies Registration Act. The institution is financed by the Government of Odisha and is administrated by a Governing Council under the President-ship of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Water Resources. By following due procedure of selection, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Research Officer on 22.06.1991 in the scale pay of Rs.2000-3500/- with usual D.A and A.D.A. Pursuant to such letter of appointment, the petitioner joined on 24.06.1991 and vide office order dated 26.06.1991, he was reposted at Pratapnagari (Atala Miner) at Pahala, which is one of the stations of action research areas of WALMI and was directed to work under administrative control of the Joint Director, WALMI. Opposite party No.4 was also selected along with the petitioner and in the said selection the petitioner stood first in the merit list whereas the opposite party No. 4 stood third in the said list. But the opposite party No.4 was promoted to Lecturer in Engineering faculty of WALMI on 27.02.1992 and he was allowed to draw the scale of pay of Assistant Research Officer, i.e., Rs. 2000-3500/- till the scale of pay to the post of Lecturer was decided by the Government. The scale of pay of the lecturers was revised from Rs.700-1600/- to Rs.2200-4000/- by the Government. Considering the fact that opposite party No.4 was discharging the duty of Lecturer, he has been extended the scale of pay of Rs.2000-4000/-. The minimum qualification required for the post of the lecturer in Engineering subject was M.E/M.Tech. in appropriate branch of Engineering /Technology, with at least 55% of marks and 5 years teaching/field experience. Opposite party no.4 having no requisite qualification, by virtue of arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer ignoring the petitioner, who stood first in the select list of Assistant Research Officer. The petitioner submitted a representation claiming such benefit of promotion to the post of Lecturer. While such representation was pending for consideration, an advertisement was published in daily newspaper on 24.08.1994 for appointment of Lecturer in Engineering fixing minimum qualification as M.E/M.Tech. with 5 year teaching/field experience. The illegal promotion of the opposite party No.4 having been objected to by way of filing representation and the same having been kept pending, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.J.C No. 5950 of 1994 against the inaction of authorities, which was disposed of vide order dated 08.09.1994 directing the authorities to consider the representation and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order expeditiously. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by opposite party No.3 vide order dated 24.10.1994 in Annexure-11 refusing to grant the benefit as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, this writ application.

(3.) Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that opposite party No.4 having no requisite qualification, has been given promotion to the post of Lecturer on the ground that he had already completed 8 terms out of 9 terms of Master in Business Administration course with excellent performance. He further submitted that opposite party No.4 had no extra qualification other than A.M.I.E degree at the time of promotion to the post of Lecturer on 27.02.1992. The petitioner having stood first in the merit list which was prepared by the authority for the post of Assistant Research Officer, ignoring his claim for the promotion, opposite party No.4, who stood 3rd in the merit list, has been given benefit of promotion to the post of Lecturer without issuing any advertisement and without following due procedure of law, which is opposed to the public policy. He further submitted that the appointment of opposite party no.4 in the post of Lecturer having been made in a surreptitious manner, it violates the settled position of law. Had the opportunity been given to the petitioner, he would have also gained the experience and he would have been appointed as a Lecturer on promotion basis. He further submitted that the promotion of opposite party No.4 having not been done without following due procedure of law, the same amounts to illegal promotion and therefore should be quashed.