SRIKANTA MOHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties for appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Lecturer, Stenography and Secretarial Practice in Class II in Orissa Technical Education and Training Service (for short 'OTE and T') on the basis of the select list prepared by the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short 'OPSC') in the year 1989.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that during 1988 a requisition was made to the OPSC for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Engineering Schools and Polytechnic in Class -II service vide Industries Department letter No. 11 -110 -16281 'dated 26.05.1988. In pursuance of an advertisement published by the OPSC, the petitioner along with others appeared at an interview conducted by the OPSC in the year 1989 for the said post. A select list was prepared on 25.07.1989 (Annexure -1) by the OPSC in which the name of one Ashok Kumar Rath was recommended for the said post. While doing so, a list of nine -eligible candidates under general category in order of merit was, also furnished by the OPSC to the Government as no SC and ST candidate was available. The case of the Petitioner is that since the said select list was not given effect to, one Chita Ranjan Mishra, who was continuing on ad hoc basis moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 827 of 1990 seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties for giving him regular appointment as per the select list prepared by the OPSC. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 03.05.1994 directing the Opposite Parties to take a final decision to give regular appointment to the selected candidates in order of merit out of the select list prepared by the OPSC subject to availability of the vacancy. When this order of the Tribunal was not complied with, said Chita Ranjan Mishra moved the Tribunal in a Contempt Petition and the Tribunal vide its Order Dated 01.07.1996 directed the Government to give appointment to Sri Mishra. Such an order was passed on the -basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Government wherein it was disclosed that there were 3 vacancies available in general category. Since Petitioner's case was not considered in spite of several representations made to the Government, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3502(C) of 1997 for a direction to Opposite Parties to absorb him in the post of Lecturer on the basis of the select list prepared on 25.07.1989 by the OPSC. The Learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the Petitioner on two grounds, viz., (i) the petition was barred by limitation and (ii) the Petitioner had no right to claim appointment after expiry of validity of select list. Hence, the Writ Petition.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Trilochan Rath, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State, submitted that a requisition for recruitment of sixtyone posts of Lecturers in different disciplines including two posts of lecturers in Stenography and Secretarial practice (for short 'SSP') was made to the OPSC. Out of these two posts of lecturers in SSP, one post was meant for general and the other for ST candidates. The OPSC after due selection had recommended the name of Sri Ashok Kumar Rath for appointment as Lecturer against the lone general vacancy and said Sri Rath had been appointed as such. Further, the OPSC had recommended the names of nine general candidates against reserved vacancy meant for ST candidates vide Annexure -2 to the counter as no SC/ST candidate was available. Since there was only one post for general candidate and the Petitioner's name found place at Sl. No. 4, there was no occasion to appoint him against that particular post in which Sri Rath was absorbed. Moreover, the panel was valid for one year as per the OTE and T Service Rules, 1985. Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra was working as Lecturer on ad hoc basis before the said requisition was made to the OPSC. After receipt of the recommendation of the OPSC, the Government retrenched Sri Mishra as his position was at Sl. No. 3 in the panel of names recommended by the OPSC. Sri Mishra filed O.A. No. 827 of 1990 before the Tribunal and by virtue of the stay order Sri Mishra continued in service. The Tribunal vide its Orders Dated 01.07.1996 and 07.04.1997 had directed the Government to appoint Sri Mishra who during the relevant time was continuing on ad hoc basis against one general vacancy as at that point of time there were three vacancies available. The Government appointed him against such vacancies only as per direction of the Tribunal. Thus, the case of Sri Mishra was all together different. But, the Petitioner after coming to know of the case of Sri Mishra, filed O.A. No. 3502(C) of 1997 after lapse of eight years from the date of recommendation of the OPSC &, therefore, the application was barred by limitation. The recommendation of the OPSC was valid for a period of one year as per Rule 14 of the OTE and T Service Rules and after expiry of the said period the Petitioner cannot claim for such appointment. In support of his contention, Sri Rath, Learned Counsel for the State relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. : AIR 2007 SC 924.