LAWS(ORI)-2005-12-3

SACHIKANTA MISHRA Vs. COLLECTOR

Decided On December 07, 2005
Sachikanta Mishra Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20th May, 1999 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in dismissing O.A. No. 3171 (C) of 1997 of the instant petitioners.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had appeared at the written examination held on 3.3.93 and also at the typewriting test for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Office in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Collector, Nayagarh for the Nayagarh District. In the advertisement dated 3.8.1995 only 16 vacancies were advertised out of which 8 vacancies were earmarked for general candidates and the remaining 8 vacancies were earmarked for the candidates belonging to reserved category. The details of advertisement are that, 8 vacancies for general candidates (Male -5, Female -3), 8 vacancies for reserved candidates : SC -3 (Male -2, Female -1), ST -3 (Male -2, Female -1), SEBC -2 (Male -1 and Female -1). Against the above vacancies, a select list was published on 18.10.1996 containing names of 17 male and 5 female candidates of general category, 14 male and 2 female candidates of SEBC category and 4 male and 2 female of Scheduled Caste category no candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe (either male or female) was selected. All the petitioners occupied lower position in the select list in their respective categories. They were not given appointment out of select list for which they filed the O.A. before the Tribunal for a direction to appoint them also alleging that even though the vacancies were subsisting at the relevant time, they were not given appointment.

(3.) IT is not disputed that only 16 vacancies were advertised for which a select list of 44 persons was published and only 23 persons were given appointments'. The position of the petitioners in merit list was much below the candidates, who had been given appointment. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any discrimination in making the appointment.