KANHU CHARAN SETHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners, who are 35 in number, have filed this writ application challenging the office Orders Dated 05.02.1996 and 09.02.1996 issued by Opposite Party No. 3 -Secretary of Orissa State Housing Board (hereinafter 'Board') under Annexure -1 and 2 terminating their service and relieving them from their duties.

(2.) THE Secretary of the Board by letter dated 07.09.1992, under Annexure -9, requested the Director, Employment, Orissa to sponsor candidates for the posts of Junior Assistant for appointment under the Board. In the said requisition letter, it was indicated that the Board in its 175th meeting held on 29.07.1992 decided that the minimum educational qualification for the post of Junior Assistant in the Board would be Bachelor's Degree in Arts, Science & Commerce and accordingly decided to place revised requisitions with the Employment Exchanges to sponsor candidates with the above qualification. Thereafter, the names of the Petitioners along with others were sponsored and they faced the written test, personal interview as well as career marks. The Selection Committee, which was constituted by the Board for the purpose of selecting candidates for the aforesaid posts of Junior Assistant, prepared a merit list in their proceedings dated 02.12.1995, vide Annexure -30 and recommended the names of candidates including the names of the Petitioners for the posts basing upon the written test, personal interview and career marks in order of merit (category -wise) and for the purpose of gradation list. In terms of the aforesaid recommendation of the Selection Committee as per Annexure -30, the Board issued identical but separate appointment Orders Dated 8.12.1994 to the Petitioners and one of such appointment orders issued to Petitioner No. 16 - Tusharkanti Mohanty is annexed as Annexure -4. In the said appointment order, it was indicated that the appointment under the Board was temporary against the existing vacancies for Rural Housing Programme for a period of one year in the scale of pay of Rs. 950 -20 -1150 -EB -25 -1500 with usual allowances as admissible to the Board employees from time to time until further orders and the appointee would be on probation for a period of one year.

(3.) SHRI Dora, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners were recruited through a regular process of recruitment and the period of probation was for one year. The appointment was regular and their appointment letters show that though they were appointed temporarily for a period of one year, they were on probation for a period of one year. They had already completed the said period of probation of one year by the date the order of termination was passed. The further case of the Petitioners is that some of the candidates, who were placed below the Petitioners in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee vide Annexure -30, have been retained in service, whereas the Petitioners have been asked to be relieved by virtue of the orders under Annexures -1 and 2. This, according to Shri Dora, is discriminatory. That apart, he draws our attention to the list of staff available in the district office at the combined offices of the Assistant Administrative Officers of Cuttack, Jajpur, Jagatsinghpur at Badambadi, Cuttack annexed to the inspection report of the Chairman of the Board, vide Annexure -16, which shows that some of the Petitioners were working as regular employees.