LAWS(ORI)-2008-6-20

KANHU CHARAN MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On June 19, 2008
Kanhu Charan Muduli Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Kanhu Charan Muduli was originally appointed as 'Sweeper' in the U.N. College, Soro w.e.f. 26.9.1983 on the basis of the resolution passed by the Governing Body of the college. The Petitioner asserts that the post of Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Zoology was created w.e.f. 5.1.1987 and the Petitioner was appointed as such, from the said date.

(2.) THE Petitioner has filed this writ application seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to approve the services of the Petitioner as Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Zoology against the second post in U.N. College, Soro w.e.f. 5.1.1987 and to pay his arrear salary as well as all service benefits consequent thereto.

(3.) MR . Samaniray, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner had joined the college on 26.9.1983 as a Sweeper and worked as such, but in the year, 1987 after creation of the Second post of Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Zoology, the Petitioner was adjusted against the said post w.e.f. 5.1.1987 and such appointment was regularized by the Governing Body of the college vide resolution No. 16 dated 27.10.1990. Mr. Samantray submits that the reason ascribed by the Opposite Party No. 2 not to approve the services of the Petitioner, was purportedly on the ground that the Petitioner had only joined the post w.e.f. 27.10.1990 and hence had not completed five years as of 1.6.1994, i.e., the date of the notification issued by the Government. Learned Counsel submits that although the Governing Body regularized the appointment of the Petitioner to the Second Post of Laboratory Attendant in the Department of Zoology by Resolution dated 27.10.1990, yet, the said Resolution regularized the appointment of the Petitioner, retrospectively w.e.f. 5.1.1987 and, therefore, the Petitioner having been appointed on 5.1.1987 had completed more than five years of service as on 1.6.1994 and, therefore, the case of the Petitioner ought not to have been rejected on the said ground.