NALINIKANTA RAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 21.8.1998 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.As. Nos. 886, 887, 888, 889, 1380, 1383, 1384 and 1385 of 1998. The Tribunal dismissed the said cases.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applications were invited on 16.4.1992 to attend the interview to fill up the six posts of Copy Holders in Government Press. Four posts were to be filled up by general category candidates and one post each by Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste candidates. The interview was held on 2.6.1993. In the selection, nine candidates of general category and five candidates from Scheduled Caste and four from Scheduled Tribe were declared selected. The petitioners' names found place in the select list. But they were not given appointment order. Being aggrieved, they filed O.A. No. 346 of 1995 and the Tribunal vide order dated 22.1.96 allowed the application directing to appoint the candidates from out of the list prepared on 13.7.1993 pursuant to which the petitioners were given appointment. However, against that decision of the Tribunal, the State of Orissa had filed Special Leave Petition No. 2517 of 1997 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The leave was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequently the SLP was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3258 of 1997 which was allowed. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was set aside observing that it was not for the Tribunal to consider the select list as 'live' and in force and to make further appointment from that list. But in the mean time the petitioners were already appointed vide order dated 1.2.1996, by the Director, Printing, Stationary and Publication, Orissa. A copy of the appointment order was sent to the Section Officer, Judicial Section -III, State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Government Advocate, State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and second copy in O.A. No. 346 of 1996 which also shows that the appointment order was given pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 346 of 1996. But when the Hon'ble Apex Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal, the opposite parties terminated the services of fourteen persons including the petitioners vide order dated 15.5.1998. Thereafter all of them filed O.As. including the petitioners. The petitioners' O.As. were registered as O.A. Nos. 886, 887, 888, 889, 1380, 1383, 1384 and 1385 of 1998. The Tribunal dismissed the O.As. by a common order dated 21.8.1998 against which the instant Writ Application has been filed.

(3.) SINCE the petitioners were the parties before the Hon'ble Apex Court and they had ample opportunity to plead their case, it cannot be said that after the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court setting aside the order of the Tribunal, pursuant to which the petitioners were given appointment, the termination order is bad in law. Further in the cases of Jatinder Kumar and Ors v. State of Punjab and offers reported in : AIR1984SC1850 , Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India reported in : (1992)IILLJ18SC and Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana reported in : [1986]3SCR785 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the selected candidates have no right to be appointed and it is the Government to decide whether the vacant posts are to be filled up or not.