PRADIPTA KUMAR SAHANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition being aggrieved by the Order Dated 11.01.1999 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 746 of 1995.

(2.) THE factual backdrops of the case, as narrated in this Writ Petition, are as follows: In pursuance of an advertisement published on 3.9.1993 to fill up 87 posts of Sub Inspector Police (General), the Petitioner applied for the said post being an Ex -Serviceman. Accordingly, the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No. 5 appeared in the interview conducted by the Central Selection Board (in sort, 'CSB') & a select list was published consisting of 87 candidates including 3 candidates, namely, Biswanta Rout, Dibakar Sahoo & Puma Chandra Jena under Ex -Servicemen quota. Orders of appointment were issued to them. Biswanath Rout & Dibakar Sahoo joined in the said post but Puma Chandra Jena did not join. The Petitioner came to know that some irregularities were committed by the CSB in respect of selection of candidates in the Ex -Servicemen category, as the present Opposite Party No. 5 who was not coming within the category of Ex -Serviceman, his appointment was made under the said category. The Petitioner also filed a representation to the President, CSB -cum -DG & IG of Police indicating the said facts in details. Thereafter, he filed OA No. 796(c) of 1995 before the Tribunal challenging the appointment of Opposite Party No. 5 which was disposed of on 12.12.1997 with a direction to the appointing authority to consider the representation of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed a fresh representation before the concerned authority indicating therein that the present Opposite Party No. 5 was not eligible to get the benefit of Ex -Serviceman. He also stated that the other candidates, namely, Prahallad Nayak & Santosh Kumar Mishra were also not eligible to be considered for the vacancies. Sri Nayak did not appear before the CSB. As Sri Mishra got an appointment in some other Department & joined there, the Petitioner being the next person in the select list was eligible for the said post. However, his representation was rejected by the authority on 18.2.1998 bypassing a non -reasoned order. Therefore, the Petitioner again approached, the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 496 of 1995.

(3.) IT is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the review petition was not disposed of on merits, the said order was not coming within the doctrine of res judicata. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act obtained a copy of the letter dated 10.10.2006 from the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board to the Principal Secretary to Government Home Department alleging fraudulent appointment obtained by Opposite Party No. 5 -Ajay Chandra Muduli and further bringing to the notice of the Government that the aforesaid aspect was not brought before the Tribunal in OA No. 746 of 1995 as well as before this Court in OJC No. 1441 of 2000.