PURUSOTTAM BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was one of the applicants for the posts of Management Trainee (Technical), pursuant to the advertisement in Annexure-1 floated in the website of opposite party no.2, has filed this writ application seeking direction to the opposite parties to produce the relevant records pertaining to the selection, and further to issue appointment order in his favour since six posts of Management Trainee (Technical) are still available to be filled up.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner is a Graduate in Electrical Engineering. While he was continuing as Lecturer in the Electrical Engineering Department of Balasore School of Engineering, Balasore, an advertisement was floated vide Annexure-1 in the website of opposite party no.2 inviting applications for recruitment of 40 Management Trainees (Technical), 5 Management Trainees (HR) and 2 Management Trainees (Finance) for its 1.1 MT integrated steel plant located at Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex, Duburi in the district of Jajpur. The required qualification for Management Trainees (Technical) was Engineering Degree in Metallurgy/Chemical/ Electrical/Mechanical/Refractory/Instrumentation from a recognized university/institute with minimum 65% marks in aggregate of all years/semesters. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the post of Management Trainee (Technical). On consideration of his application, he was called upon, by issuing admit card, to appear at the written test. On being qualified in the written test, he was called upon, vide letter dated 12.08.2009, to appear at the group discussion test and interview to be held on 01.09.2009, in which he participated. When the petitioner was waiting for his result, the same was neither published in the website of opposite party no.2 nor communicated to the petitioner in general process. When the petitioner made a query from opposite party no.3, at first he came to learn that successful candidates would be issued with appointment order in a phased manner, but subsequently he learnt that 34 persons have been appointed as Management Trainees.

(3.) Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A.K. Saa, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that although the candidates securing lesser marks than the petitioner have been selected and appointed, the petitioner has been ignored even though his performance in the interview was quite satisfactory. It is further contended that the mark secured by the petitioner in the interview was not carried out properly and there may be some manipulation in awarding such mark, for which he has been awarded very less mark in the interview. On perusal of letter dated 24.01.2013 it appears that all the candidates who appeared at the interview have been awarded higher marks in the interview, whereas the petitioner has been awarded only seven marks. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for production of interview records and a direction to the opposite parties to give him appointment against the remaining six vacancies forthwith.