SUDIPTA PATTANAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging to the judgment of the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 7.4.2003 (Annexure -11). Five Original Applications (in short 'O.As.'), which includes O.A. No. 1953 (C) of 2002, were disposed of by the common impugned judgement. Petitioner was the applicant in the above noted O.A.

(2.) THE undisputed fact involved in the case is that on the requisition of the State Government, the Orissa Public Service Commission issued an advertisement, which was published in the daily newspaper on 6.5.2002. Annexure -5 is a copy of such advertisement. In that advertisement applications in the prescribed form were invited from in service Assistant Surgeons of the categories mentioned in that advertisement for the Junior Teaching Posts (Lecturers) in 32 disciplines (subjects). While prescribing the age, qualifications and experience, etc. as indicated in Annexure -5, the last date of receipt of application was fixed to June 6th, 2002. It was provided there in that, 'In service doctors with P.G. Degree but without the prescribed experience of one year and those with P. G. Degree who are not in -service Doctors, may also apply but they will be considered only if those working as Assistant Surgeons/Lecturers under the State Government/State Government Undertakings with the prescribed qualification are not available in adequate number'. According to the vacancy position indicated in Annexure -5, 14 posts were notified in Physiology discipline to which category petitioner belongs. The other undisputed fact is that the advertisement was made keeping in view the vacancy position after the last date of advertisement in 1999 and the vacancy, which had occurred till 2001.

(3.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that if the P.G. Course would have commenced in May, 1999, then she would have been eligible to apply for a post as per the advertisement, Annexure -5. There was no personal contribution from the petitioner for the delayed admission in the month of September, 1999 and therefore she cannot be prejudiced for a wrong not done by her and, in any event the State Government should have extended the last date of receipt of applications to a period beyond September, 2002, so that petitioner would have been able to apply for the post and to compete with the other applicants and since such a practice was adopted by the State Government in relation to the recruitment made in the year 1999, therefore, that parity should have been granted to the eligible candidates including the petitioner for the impugned recruitment of the year 2002. It may be noted that in the other original applications, similar dispute was also raised and, therefore all the five original applications were disposed of by the tribunal as per the impugned common judgment, Annexure -11.