ASWINI KUMAR DASPATTANAYAK Vs. ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed with the following prayers:

(2.) The sequence of events as revealed from the writ petitions is that the petitioner while practicing as an Advocate at Koraput, appeared in the O.P.S.C. Recruitment test under Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II (Munsif) (Emergency Recruitment) Rules, 1974 in which the petitioner secured 1st position. Consequently, he attended medical examination and police verification etc. prior to appointment. Thereafter, he got appointment as Munsif, Class-II by the Governor of Orissa (under Article 234 of the Constitution). His service was placed with the High Court of Orissa-opposite Party No. 2 under Article 235 of the Constitution for administrative control and vesting of power. As such, to function as Judicial Officer of the State, he joined as J.M.F.C. at Chhatrapur in obedience to the orders of High Court and continued till May, 1978. In the month of June, 1978, he was posted as J.M.F.C., Bhadrak and continued till May, 1979, when he was posted as S.D.J.M.-cum-Munsif, Nayagarh and continued till May, 1982. In June, 1979, he was promoted and posted as S.D.J.M., Balasore and continued till May, 1984, worked as Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar till June, 1987. While working as Asst. Commissioner, High Court made an unprecedented and illegal endeavour by superseding the petitioner and 27 other Officers of the Batch, allowed promotion to three out of 28 Officers appointed in 1978. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this High Court being authorized by all his batch mates. The said writ petition was registered as OJC No. 2254 of 1985. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of O.J.S. Class-I (Sub-Judge) in usual course and maintained his top position in his batch. In the month of June, 1987, the petitioner posted as Sub-Judge-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Aska.

(3.) By way of the connected writ petition i.e. OJC No. 11034 of 1996, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory/ premature retirement.