MAHAMAYA PRASAD NAYAK Vs. OUAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Post Graduate Research Fellow (Agriculture Extension) under Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, has filed this application seeking to quash the order of appointment of opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 issued under Annexures 3 to 7 and further seeking for a direction to appoint him as Training Associate with effect from the date the orders of appointment in Annexures 3 and 4 were issued and further seeking for a direction that he is entitled to be appointed against any of the 11 posts, which were the subject matter of advertisement under Annexure-1 and extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, (hereinafter to be referred to as "OUAT", in short) established under the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Act, 1966, has been functioning for the purpose of imparting instruction in the subjects connected with agriculture and agricultural technology. The petitioner has acquired the qualification of B.Sc. (Agri.) and thereafter M.Sc. (Agri) in Agriculture Extension from OUAT, Bhubaneswar in the year 1992. Thereafter he has been engaged as Post Graduate Research Fellow (Agriculture Extension) at Krushi Vigyan Kendra, G. Udayagiri in the district of Phulbani. The petitioner was appointed against the initial post in the year 1994 and continued as such till the date of filing of the writ application. The OUAT issued an advertisement on 19.09.1995 for filling up of the following posts:

(3.) Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner urged that the selection has to be done in consonance with the advertisement issued. The advertisement does not indicate with regard to the post advertised vis-a-vis the post reserved, only the number of vacancies have been advertised. The petitioner having qualified in the selection process and stood second, his selection should have been done taking into consideration his past experience and it should not have been done beyond the advertisement issued, which deprives the claim, of the petitioner for regularisation at par with his counterparts i.e. opposite party No. 3 to 7, who have got the benefit of judgments of this Court in Annexure-9 and 10. It is urged that since the petitioner stands in the same footing as that of opposite party Nos. 3 to 7, his case should have been considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Annexure-9 and 10 and his service should have been regularised in accordance with the direction issued in Annexure-9 and 10 at par with their counterparts, i.e opposite party Nos. 3 to 7. It is further urged that so far as applicability of the roster point under the ORV Act is concerned, an utter confusion has been created by the opposite parties both in counter affidavit and subsequent affidavit filed by opposite parties to the extent that initially advertisement was made to fill up 8 nos. of vacancies of Training Associate. It is again stated that the said number of vacancies has been reduced to 6 and then, in the counter affidavit it is stated that it is reduced to 7 thereby, there is inconsistency with regard to the number of vacancies at different stages, which is contrary to the advertisement issued, consequence thereof is dislocation of roster point and the entire action has been done just to deprive the petitioner to get regularisation of service. In order to substantiate his case, he has relied upon the judgments in Dayanidhi Mishra and others v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and another (OJC No. 17618 of 1997 disposed of on 27.07.2005), Dr. Sarbanarayan Mishra v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and another (W.P. (C) No. 14049 of 2006 disposed of on 17.07.2008), Devraj Lenka v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology and another (W.P. (C) No. 7705 of 2009 disposed of on 03.02.2011), Susanta Kumar Mohanty v. O.U.A.T. and another (W.P.(C) No. 2185 of 2009, disposed of on 15.12.2015), 2016 (1) OLR 565, State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, 2015 (1) SCC 347.