Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Mohapatra, B.N. Mahapatra, JJ.
SRIKANTA MOHAN MISHRA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 21-07-2009
The appearance of a candidate's name in a select list does not confer the right to appointment, and a candidate cannot claim appointment after the expiry of the select list's validity.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Appointment of Lecturer, Stenography & Secretarial Practice - OTE & T Service Rules, 1985 - The court discussed the validity of the select list, the right to claim appointment after the expiry of the list's validity, and the principle that appearance in the select list does not confer the right to appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment as a Lecturer in Stenography & Secretarial Practice based on a select list prepared by the Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC) in 1989. The petitioner's claim was based on the availability of vacancies and the non-compliance with the select list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation and that the select list had lost its validity, thus the petitioner was not entitled to claim appointment based on the expired list.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation. 2. Whether appointment could be made from a select list that had lost its validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation and that no appointment could be made from the expired select list. The court cited legal principles and judgments to support its findings.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties for appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Lecturer, Stenography & Secretarial Practice in Class II in Orissa Technical Education & Training Service (for short 'OTE & T') on the basis of the select list prepared by the Orissa Public Service Commission (for short 'OPSC') in the year 1989.
2. The facts & circumstances giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that during 1988 a requisition was made to the OPSC for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Engineering Schools & Polytechnic in Class-II service vide Industries Department letter No. 11-110-16281 'dated 26.05.1988. In pursuance of an advertisement published by the OPSC, the petitioner along with others appeared at an interview conducted by the OPSC in the year 1989 for the said post. A select list was prepared on 25.07.1989 (Annexure-1) by the OPSC in which the name of one Ashok Kumar Rath was recommended for the said post. While doing so, a list of nine-eligible candidates under general category in order of merit was, also furnished by the OPSC to the Government as no SC & ST candidate was available. The case of the Petitioner is that since the said select list was not given effect to, one Chita Ranjan Mishra, who was continuing on ad hoc basis moved the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 827 of 1990 seeking for a direction to Opposite Parties for giving him regular appointment as per the select list prepared by the OPSC. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 03.05.1994 directing the Opposite Parties to take a final decision to give regular appointment to the selected candidates in order of merit out of the select list prepared by the OPSC subject to availability of the vacancy. When this order of the Tribunal was not complied with, said Chita Ranjan Mishra moved the Tribunal in a Contempt Petition & the Tribunal vide its Order Dated 01.07.1996 directed the Government to give appointment to Sri Mishra. Such an order was passed on the-basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Government wherein it was disclosed that there were 3 vacancies available in general category. Since Petitioner's case was not considered in spite of several representations made to the Government, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3502(C) of 1997 for a direction to Opposite Parties to absorb him in the post of Lecturer on the basis of the select list prepared on 25.07.1989 by the OPSC. The Learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the Petitioner on two grounds, viz., (i) the petition was barred by limitation & (ii) the Petitioner had no right to claim appointment after expiry of validity of select list. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the original application was condonable as per the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court. After 1989, there has not been any further selection for the said post of Lecturer by the OPSC. It was further argued that the Government in its counter filed in O.A. No. 827 of 1990 categorically disclosed that there were three vacancies available in general category. Since Sri Chita Ranjan Mishra was at Sl. No. 3 of the select list, after his appointment the Petitioner automatically moved to Sl. No. 3 from Sl. No. 4 against remaining two vacancies meant for the general candidates. As Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo, being at Sl. No. 2 was appointed as Lecturer in Government College & was not interested for the present post; one Smt. Kalpana Jena & the Petitioner were available to be absorbed in the remaining two vacancies as against the general category. The Opposite Parties instead of absorbing said Smt. Kalpana Jena & the Petitioner had continued with one Hrudananda Nayak on ad hoc basis in spite of the order of the Tribunal to give regular appointment to th
