CHAKRADHAR SAHOO Vs. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UTILITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition no.241 of 2017 declining to review the said Court's order dated 12.10.2017 in W.P.(C)No.8091 of 2009 rejecting the writ petition of the present appellant-petitioner. The present appellant filed W.P.(C) No.8091 of 2009 arraying the present respondents as opposite parties with the submission that he joined as a Clerk-B in the Corporate Office, Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa (CESU, in brief) and after putting more than thirty years of service earned the eligibility for appearing at the Departmental Test Examination for promotion to the higher post of Divisional Accountant in the said office. He appeared at the examination but was declared fail. He raised his grievances before the concerned authority by submitting representations but since it was not paid heed to, he filed the writ petition pleading inter-alia that the opposite party- CESU considered the candidature of opposite party-Respondent Nos.3 to 5 who according to him were not eligible to be promoted but were given promotions so also one Ananta Charan Debata. Hence, he prayed to hold and declare the selection of the other candidates to the post of Accountant pursuant to the third departmental test examination conducted by CESU in April, 2008 as bad and illegal and to quash the impugned selection and consequential appointment orders to the post of Divisional Accountant with a further direction to hold a fresh selection or to consider the case of the petitioner by allowing a fresh valuation of English Paper-I of the petitioner through an expert in English since he was declared fail only because he secured less than qualifying mark in the said subject.

(2.) Per contra, it was the submission made on behalf of CESU that there was no illegality in conducting the Departmental Test Examination or selection of the successful candidates. It was their further case that the petitioner had also appeared at the said examination but since he was found failed, he was not granted promotion for the higher post. It was further submitted that so far as one Ananta Charan Debata is concerned, although he was allowed to appear at the alleged Third Departmental Test Examination, but subsequently it was found out by the competent authority that he has been wrongly allowed and hence, his candidature has been rejected, so also he has been denied promotion to the higher post. It was further submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the private opposite-party nos. 3 to 5 had been appointed on contract basis by way of giving relaxation to count the period of service rendered by them and such relaxation was given by the competent authority in exercise of power conferred upon them under Regulation-17 of the Orissa State Electricity Board Sub-ordinate, Audit and Accounts Service Regulations 1970 (in short, OSEB Service Regulation, 1970). Thus, it was submitted that there was absolutely no illegality in the acts of the opposite party so as to entitle the petitioner for any relief.

(3.) The contention advanced by the petitioner that the opposite party nos. 3 to 5 had not completed required tenure of service and were wrongly permitted to appear at the examination, has been negatived by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the provisions in the OSEB Service Regulation 1970 which provided that: