MIHIR KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the opposite parties to select and appoint him as a Storage Agent of Ghatagaon Block as per the recommendation made by the Collector, Keonjhar for the year 2005 -2006 and to quash the selection made by opposite party No. 2/Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') vide letter dated 3.11.2005 (Anenxure -5 to the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that he had applied to the Collector, Keonjhar for recommending his name for appointment as a Storage Agent of Ghatgaon Block in the district of Keonjhar. The Collector, Keonjhar recommended the names of the petitioner along with three others for such appointment. The name of opposite party No. 6 was also considered by the Collector, but as he was not found suitable, his name was not recommended. Even though the Collector did not recommend the name of opposite party No. 6, he was selected by the Corporation for appointment as one of the Storage Agents. As such, the petitioner was not selected in variance with the recommendation of the Collector. Both the cases of the petitioner and opposite party No. 6 were supported by the recommendations of the local public representative, i.e., M.L.A., Telkoi. While selecting opposite party No. 6, opposite party No. 2 -Corproation mechanically acted upon the recommendation of the Public representative without assigning any valid reason.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 2/Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation along with opposite party No. 4/Civil Supplies Officer -cum -District Manager, OSCSC Ltd., Keonjhar have filed their counter affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that as per Clause 2 of the Guidelines the Collector's recommendation shall be given weightage, but opposite party No. 2 shall have to give weightage also to the recommendation received from the Public representative through Government for selection and appointment of suitable Storage Agent. In the instant case, the Corporation received recommendation of the Public Representative through the State Government on 10.5.2005 for selection and appointment of opposite party No. 6 who had already applied for such appointment through proper channel. As such, since recommendation of the Public Representative in favour of opposite party No. 6 was received through the Government prior to completion of the selection process, i.e., on 10.5.2005, the Corporation on proper consideration of all the recommendations, has validly selected and appointed opposite party No. 6 as Storage Agent for the year 2005 -2006. The recommendation of the Collector in favour of the petitioner was not based on any recommendation by the Public Representative. Opposite party No. 6 having been selected and appointed as a Storage Agent, has already executed the agreement by furnishing security on 24.11.2005. But due to interim order of this Court dated 5.12.2005, opposite party No. 4 was not able to allow opposite party No. 6 for distribution of the essential commodities to the respective sub -wholesalers/retailers/consumers. The petitioner before his appointment illegally deposited the renewal fee of his expired licence on 1.4.2005. In the agreement by which the storage agency of the petitioner was temporarily extended, it was categorically stipulated that such temporary extension shall not be a ground for fresh appointment for the next year. As such extending the petitioner's licence period temporarily till the final selection and appointment is made for the year 2005 -2006, can never be said that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been validly appointed till the end of 31.3.3006. There is no violation of the Guidelines in appointing opposite party No. 6 as a Storage agent. The Corporation has not received any recommendation made by the Public Representative at any point of time in favour of the petitioner for appointing him as a Storage Agent for the year 2005 -2006, which has been annexed as Annexure -7 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. Similarly, the Corproation has also not received any letter of the Public Representative at Anenxure -8 tot he rejoinder affidavit. The selection of the Storage Agent for the year 2005 -2006 in respect of Keonjhar district was completed on 31.10.2005 and the so -called recommendation and the letter were of a much later date than the date of completion of selection of the Storage Agent on 31.10.2005 and the agreement -dated 24.11.2005 (Annexure -B/6) executed by the Corporation with opposite party No. 6. The appointment order issued to opposite party No. 6 on 3.12.2005 by opposite party No. 4 by the order of the Collector, Keonjhar (Annexure -C/6) was also much prior to the so -called letter dated 19.12.2005 (Annexure -8). It is further stated by opposite parties 2 and 4 that Clause (2) of the Guidelines (Anenxure -3) specifically provides that recommendation of the Public Representative received at the level of the Corporation duly forwarded by the Government will be given weightage for selection/appointment of Storage Agent. In the instant case, the Public Representative has recommended the case of opposite party No. 6 for appointment as a Storage Agent, the same has been duly forwarded by the Under Secretary to Government, Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department and the same was received by the Corporation on 10.6.2005 (A Xerox copy of the said recommendation duly forwarded by the Government was filed before the Court by opposite party No. 2 at the time of hearing of this case along with the notes of argument). After receipt of all the recommendations, the board of Directors of the Corporation as per Clause 7 of the Guidelines, selected opposite party No. 6 for appointment as a Storage Agent of Ghatagaon Block. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by opposite party No. 2 in selecting and appointing opposite party No. 6 as a Storage Agent.