The main legal point established is that a person is borne in a post only when a formal appointment order is issued, and service benefits cannot be claimed prior to the date of joining a position.

JUDGMENT :

M.S.SAHOO, J.

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is serving as Sikshya Sahayak in Banamalipur Government M.E. School, challenging the order dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure-8) passed by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh-opposite party no.3, whereby, the Collector has heard the petitioner in person (pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9355 of 2014) and has rejected the claim of the petitioner to treat him as recruitee/appointee for the year 2011 and to accord him all consequential service benefits.

2.1. The brief background of the case is that on 23.01.2011, the opposite party no.3-Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh issued advertisement for appointment of Sikshya Sahayak on contract basis in Upper Primary (U.P.)/Up-graded M.E. Schools in the district of Nayagarh. The petitioner applied for the post of Sikshya Sahayak under Nayagarh under the Trained Graduate Arts category. His candidature was rejected on the ground that Sikhya Sastri qualification of Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan is not equivalent to B.Ed certificate.

2.2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner possesses a “Sikshya Sastri” Degree: from Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, which is a recognized Institution, however in the final select list his name was excluded on account of his degree not being B.Ed degree. The petitioner contends that the Sikshya Sastri Degree of Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan is equivalent to the corresponding B.Ed Degree of Utkal University.

2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner raised his grievance regarding to the non-selection, before the opposite party no.4-District Project Co-ordinator, Sarva Shikshya Abhiyan, Nayagarh and apprised him that “Sikshya Sastri” is equivalent to the Utkal University B.Ed. Course. The petitioner further asserted that his name found place in the list of trained candidates for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts), at Sl. No.196.

3. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) NO.8051 of 2011, challenging the decision of the authority in not selecting him, with a prayer to quash the notification of selection dated 05.02.2011, issued by the School and Mass Education Department.

4. This Court by its order dated 25.08.2011 was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid writ petition along with W.P.(C) No.10325 of 2011 with the following observations :

“The respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioners along with other applicants having acquired necessary qualification of B.A., B.Ed within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.”

5. Subsequently, the petitioner filed CONTC No.2605 of 2011, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 25.08.2011 and the said petition was disposed of on 29.03.2012 with an undertaking by the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department to comply the Court’s order and for such compliance, the time was extended till the end of April, 2012.

6. Subsequently, some other contempt petitions were filed by the petitioner and ultimately by order dated 17.08.2013, Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh-opposite party no.3 issued engagement order dated 17.08.2013 engaging the petitioner as “Sikshya Sahayak” in Barpalli “A” primary school under Khandapada Block. Pursuant to the said appointment order the petitioner joined on 23.08.2013.

7. Afterwards, the petitioner started claiming his engagement with effect from 2011 on the ground that the advertisement was made in 2011, filed another writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.9355 of 2014, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 18.08.2014 directing the authority to consider the case of the petitioner and the petitioner’s case was rejected by the opposite party no.3-Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh by office order dated 13.02.2015 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of