GURUCHARAN SAHU Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Mr. Manoj Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner & Mr. Nanda, Learned Counsel for Opp. Parties 1 to 3.

(2.) THE Petitioner joined as a Class -IV employee on N.M.R. basis under the Executive Orissa State Engineer, Electricity Board, Jagatsinghpur way back in the year 1973. After serving about 15 years, in the year 1979 a decision was taken to regularize the work charged/N.M.R. employees. Consequently, a process for such regularization commenced. According to the Petitioner, a trade test was conducted by the Selection Committee consisting of three officers on 19.11.1988. On the basis of the results of the said trade test, on 3.1.1989, the then Executive Engineer, J.E.D., Jagatsinghpur regularized the services of the Petitioner as helper. He also regularized the services of 54 other N.M.R. employees out of which 48 employees belonging to general cast and rest 7 belonging to SC & ST. While the matter stood thus, without any rhyme or reason, the Secretary of the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board vide Order Dated 2.2.1989 cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 582 of 1989. This Court while disposing of the said writ application on 18.7.1989 set aside the order of cancellation as the same was made unilaterally and directed the authorities to cause an enquiry. In consonance with the said direction, Opp. Party No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why his appointment in the post 'of Helper shall not be cancelled on the ground that the selection process was defective & appointment letter was issued much before finalization of the select list & also on the ground that the provisions of the O.R.V. Act were not followed. The Petitioner once again assailed the said show cause notice before this Court in OJC No. 1881 of 1998. The said writ application -was disposed of on 23.5.1990 with a direction that the Opp. Parties shall afford adequate opportunity to the Petitioner for filing show cause & in case the Petitioner wants to verify the records, he will be afforded an opportunity to do so.

(3.) THE said order was again assailed by the Petitioner along with others before this Court in OJC No. 4687 of 1990. This Court after going through the order & other materials, set aside the order & remitted the matter for de novo disposal with the observation that the Opp. Party No. 2 shall make available all the documents for perusal of the Petitioners. The Petitioners of the said case were directed to appear before Opp. Party No. 2 at the time fixed by the Court for inspection of the documents. It appears, thereafter, the Petitioner appeared before the authorities along with his advocate, inspected some of the documents, but then, it is alleged that some of the documents were not made available to him. The Secretary after hearing the parties & considering the show cause once again came to the conclusion that proper procedure was not followed while conducting the trade test, as much as the provisions of the O.R.V. Act were not followed & as such, the order of engagement of the Petitioner and Ors. cannot be sustained & by Order Dated 6.1.1994 (Annexure -12), cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Helper. The said order is assailed before this Court in the present writ application.