STATE OF ORISSA Vs. HARIPRIYA DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by the State of Orissa in the year 1999 challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Orissa administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 14.12.1998 in Original Application No. 1737 (C) of 1998, though by the said Judgment, which is under challenge, several Original Applications were disposed of. After this writ petition was filed, a Division Bench of this Court granted an interim Order dated 27.07.2000 to the effect at pending disposal of the writ application, operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shall remain stayed and if any appointment is made during the pendency of the writ application, the same shall be subject to its result. Thereafter, several applications for interventions were filed and those were allowed. Two Division Benches of this Court refused to take up this matter and the matter went out of list.

(2.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE Tribunal after considering the ratio in the case of Indra Sawhney etc. etc., v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. reported in : AIR1993SC477 held that all the 377 candidates included in the select list published by the Commission shall be appointed subject to verification of the allegation about certain candidates furnishing false certificates. The Tribunal also directed that immediate action be taken for the medical examination of those, who had not -been asked to appear before the Medical Board when it met. The Tribunal made it clear that reservation cannot exceed 50% of the total posts in view of the ratio of the Indra Sawhney case. In paragraph 16 of the Judgment, the Tribunal held that in the select list of 377 candidates all the 144 General Candidates have to be appointed. Coming to the said finding, the Tribunalhas quoted sub -paragraph 4 of Paragraph -700 of AIR 1993 Supreme Court 477. That is the concluding paragraph of Indra Sawhney case. The Tribunal also made it clear that by no stretch of imagination can Orissa be treated as a far -flung and remote area nor can, the people of the State be stated to be out of the mainstream of national life. We have no hesitation to agree with the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the State also is not in a position to differ with the said conclusion of the Tribunal.