STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRADIPTA KUMAR SAMANTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State and its functionaries are the Petitioners before this Court assailing the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dated 20th March, 2002 passed in O.A. No. 1878 of 2001 filed by opposite party No. 1.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 was appointed as Field man Demonstrator on ad hoc basis for 89 days against an existing reserved vacancy caused due to promotion of the incumbent by order dated 2nd April, 1994. Again by order dated 31.7.1994 he was given a fresh appointment in the same capacity for a further period of 60 days. While continuing on ad hoc basis in the manner stated above, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2271 of 1994 for regularization of his services. The said O.A. was disposed of as withdrawn on 6.7.1999. Because of pendency of the O.A. filed by him, he was allowed to continue on ad hoc basis. Thereafter by order dated 10.12.2001 he was terminated from service on the ground of having been appointed irregularly. While O.A. No. 2271 of 1994 was pending before the Bhubaneswar Bench, opposite party No. 1 also filed O.A. No. 1923(C) of 1991 before the Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for quashing the order dated 8.6.2001 in which the Agriculture Department directed the Director, Soil Conservation to terminate all irregular appointees. Further during pendency of the said O.A. No. 1923(C ) of 2001, the order of termination having been passed, opposite party No. 1 filed the present O.A. challenging the order of termination. His case before the Tribunal was that he was not an irregular appointee and his services had been regularized with effect from 31.7.1996. His services having been regularized, he could not be treated as an irregular appointee and his services could not be terminated without issuing a notice to show cause.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State assailed the impugned order on the ground that opposite party No. 1 had been appointed on ad hoc basis against a sanctioned vacancy on tenure basis, which was being extended from time to time. He having no right to hold the post, is also not entitled to a notice prior to termination of his service.