JEETENDRA MOHAN BEBORTHA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 9.2.1999 by which the Original Application No.1165 (C) of 1997 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE material facts of the case are that Advertisement No.145 -D was issued by the Orissa Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") in March, 1992. The petitioner having passed MBBS in the year 1983 and having completed M.S. in General Surgery in the year 1990 was working at that time as an Assistant Surgeon under the Government of Orissa having been selected by the said Commission in 1986. The Advertisement was for recruitment against certain vacancies in the rank of Junior Teacher in various disciplines including 5 vacancies against Surgery. Out of those 5 vacancies, three were for General Category, one for Scheduled Caste Category and one for Scheduled Tribe Category. The petitioner being a General Category candidate applied for the same. Since the petitioner is an in -service candidate, his application was also forwarded by the Directorate by its letters dated 8.5.1992 and 13/14.5.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 14.9.1992 from the Commission to the effect that this application for the post was rejected as the name of the Discipline was not mentioned in his application form. Challenging such decision of the Commission, the petitioner filed O.A. No.2105 of 1992 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal issued an interim order directing, inter alia, that pending decision in the Original Application, the petitioner shall appear in the interview, which was scheduled to be held on the next date fixed and also on the next day and also preferably on the day thereafter. But, the Tribunal directed that the result of the interview shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be published until further orders. Pursuant to the said order dated 22.9.1992, the petitioner appeared in the interview on 23.9.1992 before the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission by its communication dated 12.10.1992 recommended to the Government the names of five persons in order of merit for recruitment to the post of Junior Teacher in Surgery in Class II of Orissa Medical Education Services (in short, "OMES"). Out of those five vacancies, three were for General Category candidates, one for Scheduled Tribe candidates and one for Scheduled Caste candidates. So far as the petitioner was concerned, the Commission in its communication mentioned that initially the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the interview and subsequently he was allowed pursuant to the order of the Tribunal and as per the order of the Tribunal his result was kept in a sealed cover. Out of the said list provided by the Commission, 4 persons were appointed, of which 2 were from the General Category and one each from Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste category. Thereafter by order dated 18.11.1992, the other person, namely, Dr. Siba Prasad Das, whose name was also recommended by the Commission and who was at the top of the list of selected candidates was appointed. The petitioners contention is that thereby all the five vacancies were filled up. Thereafter by order dated 30.12.1992 Dr. Siba Prasad Pattnaik, Assistant Surgeon (opposite party No.5 herein) was appointed temporarily as a Junior Teacher in Surgery in Class II of OMES.

(3.) ON 19th March, 1996, the Tribunal allowed the Original, Application filed by the petitioner (O.A. No.2105 of 1992), inter alia, holding that the omission if any made by the petitioner in his application has been sufficiently made good in the forwarding letter of the Director of Health Services and the annexures to the application form and as such, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the petitioners application by the Commission was not fair and justified and the Original Application was allowed with a direction for opening the sealed cover containing the evaluation of the applicants performance in the interview and the Tribunal directed that the petitioners case should be considered by the Commission vis -a -vis other eligible candidates in accordance with the criteria prescribed for the selection in question.