NIRANJAN DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 30.08.1989 vide Annexure -12 by which he has been regularized as a Tax Collector and seeks for a direction to regularize his services as Jr. Clerk as he has discharged duty and responsibilities as NMR Clerk w.e.f. 1989 and release all consequential service benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case in hand is that the petitioner was selected following an interview conducted by opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and was appointed as NMR Clerk on 29.5.1981 and from that date he has been discharging his duty. To substantiate the same, the petitioner referred to various documents indicating that he was discharging duty of NMR Clerk assigned to him from time to time. Therefore, he seeks for regularization of his services as NMR clerk but the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 called upon him to appear in an interview and he having become successful, his services have been regularized as Tax Collector instead of Jr. Clerk, as claimed by him. Hence, this application.

(3.) MR . S. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 states that the petitioner was considered for the post of Jr. Clerk in the year 1981 but the selection committee did not find him suitable and subsequently he appeared for the post of Typist, wherein he also did not come out successful. But subsequently he was allowed to continue as NMR staff as per the relevant service rules, therefore the petitioner cannot claim a regular post when his initial recruitment is irregular one. It is stated that the petitioner having become unsuccessful in the interview cannot claim for regularization as Jr. Clerk. Mr. Rath also disputes that the petitioner discharged the duty of Jr. Clerk as claimed by him. The petitioner having become unsuccessful in the interview conducted for the post of Jr. Clerk, the authority took a decision to fill up the vacant post of Tax Collector from the existing NMR employees having minimum qualification of matriculation. Accordingly, all the illegible candidates including the petitioner were considered for the post of Tax Collector, for which the petitioner appeared before the selection committee on 29.8.1989 along with other eligible candidates and as per his performance, he was regularized in the post of Tax Collector and pursuant to Annexure -12, the petitioner discharged duty and responsibility as a Tax Collector from the date of such appointment on regular basis. Therefore, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot claim that his services should be regularized as Jr. Clerk instead of Tax Collector.