JIBAN RANJAN RAY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been fled challenging the Orders Dated 29.9.2004 and 30.9.2004 under Annexures 5 and 6 respectively by which the services of the Petitioner had been terminated on the ground that he had been illegally appointed as a Class IV employee in the judgeship of Kandhamal -Boudh, Phulbani.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner claims to have been appointed vide Order Dated 26.8.2002 (Annex. 1) as a Class IV employee by the District Judge, Kandhamal -Boudh, Phulbani. Subsequently this Court on administrative side received certain complaints and an inquiry was held. This Court came to the conclusion that appointments had been without following the procedure prescribed by law. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the then District Judge. However, subsequently it could not be completed and the same were dropped. However, a show cause dated 21.8.2004 was served upon the Petitioner why his services could not be terminated as he had been appointed without any advertisement and without being enrolled as a candidate under Rule 71 of the General Rules and Circular Orders (Civil) vide Annexure 3. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause on 21.8.2004 (Annex. - 4) and after considering the same services of the Petitioner had been terminated by the impugned orders.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the petition contending that even if it is accepted that the vacancy stood notified on the notice board of the District Court, it did not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and any appointment made without advertising the vacancy is null and void being hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.