SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ori) 492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biswanath Rath, J.
Ambuja Satpathy – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Anr. – Respondents
WPC(OAC) No. 3172 of 2018 (An application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal`s Act, 1985)
Decided On : 11-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
M/s. M.Ku. Mishra, Mr. D.K. Patnaik, J. Sahoo, S. Das, for the Appellant; Mr. S. Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. S.B. Jena, for the Respondent

The Court emphasized the obligation of the authority to appoint the next selected candidate in case of a vacancy and deemed the inclusion of the vacancy in the subsequent advertisement as illegal.

Headnote:

Appointment - Surgery Speciality - Advertisement No.15 of 2015-16, 2nd & 3rd corrigendum - Dr. Ambuja Satapathy - Appointment, Seniority, Financial Benefits, Arrears - Illegal inclusion of post in Advertisement No.12 of 2018-19 - Direction for appointment, seniority, financial benefits, arrears, and declaration of result - Litigation cost of Rs.10,000 awarded to Applicant-Petitioner

Fact of the Case:

The Applicant-Petitioner, Dr. Ambuja Satapathy, sought appointment as Asst. Professor Surgery in Speciality Category pursuant to Advertisement No.15 of 2015-16. Despite being the next selected women candidate in the Un-reserved category, she was not appointed due to the non-joining of the selected candidate. The subsequent inclusion of the vacancy in the Advertisement No.12 of 2018-19 was deemed illegal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that Dr. Ambuja Satapathy should have been appointed and directed the issuance of appointment, maintenance of seniority, provision of financial benefits, and arrears. It also directed the declaration of the result for the Advertisement No.12 of 2018-19, except for the illegally included post.

Issues: Non-appointment of Dr. Ambuja Satapathy despite being the next selected candidate, illegal inclusion of vacancy in subsequent advertisement.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the vacancy created by the non-joining of the selected candidate should have been filled by Dr. Ambuja Satapathy. It also ruled that the inclusion of the vacancy in the subsequent advertisement was illegal.

Final Decision: The Court directed the appointment, seniority, financial benefits, and arrears for Dr. Ambuja Satapathy and awarded a litigation cost of Rs.10,000 to her. It also ordered the declaration of the result for the subsequent advertisement, except for the illegally included post.

JUDGMENT

1. This application involves the following relief:-

    'Relief Sought for:

    It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue notice for show cause and call for the records and on perusal of the causes shown and upon insufficient causes shown be pleased to:

    (i) quash the advertisement dtd.11.10.2018 under annexure-17 so far as filling up the post of Asst.

    Professor Surgery in Speciality Category is concerned.

    (ii) Direct the respondents to recommend the name of the applicant in pursuance of the Advertisement No.15 of 2015-16 and give the applicant appointment in the post of Asst. Professor Surgery in Speciality Category with all consequential and financial benefits from the date of appointment of others selected candidates in same discipline.

    (iii) and may pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.

    And for this act of kindness, the applicant shall as in duty bound ever pray.'

2. The applicant-Petitioner through the above relief in one hand while claiming for quashing of the advertisement dated 11.10.2018 vide Annexure-17 (Advertisement No.12 of 2018-19), also sought for appointment in the post of Asst. Professor, Surgery in Speciality category depending on her result pursuant to the Advertisement No.15 of 2015-16 also in terms of the recommendation made in her favour by the competent authority and further with grant of all consequential and financial benefit from the date of appointment of others in terms of the aforesaid advertisement.

3. Short background involved in this case is that the cause of action in bringing such application appears to be as an outcome through the advertisement dated 11.10.2018 (Annexure-17) while not showing full compliance to the selected candidates for the post of Asst. Professor, Surgery in Group-'A' of the Odisha Medical Education Service hereinafter in short be reflected as 'O.M.E.S' pursuant to the Advertisement No.15 of 2015-16 read together with the numbers of corrigendum and illegally involving the posts for which the selection is already made in the next advertisement vide Annexure-1. Such action of the State Authorities is also claimed to be illegal as it was contrary to the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No.4124(C) of 2016 where by the interim order dated 9.06.2016 involving P.P. No.282(C) of 2016 and O.A. No.2064(C) of 2016 the Tribunal clearly directed for keeping one post of Asst. Professor, Surgery under General Category vacant. Through the pleadings the Applicant-Petitioner discloses that pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 4.07.2013 in W.P.(C) No.13721 of 2013 the Selection Committee recommended the name of the Applicant-Petitioner along with others for appointment in different disciplines and it is pursuant to which the applicant was appointed as Asst. Professor but on ad.hoc basis in M.K.C.G Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur in the discipline of Surgery and she is continuing as such. Proof of the same is filed herewith at Annexure-1. It is claimed that while the Applicant- Applicant-Petitioner was continuing as such, the respondents therein issued Advertisement No.15 of 2015-16 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Asst. Professor in different disciplines including that of Surgery discipline. The advertisement also made it clear that the selection therein shall be made as per the O.M.E.S (Methods of Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2009. So far as the discipline of Surgery is concerned; the advertisement contains fifteen numbers of post on that head and out of which three posts were reserved for S.T. (2 Male + 1 Woman), four posts were reserved for S.C. (3 Male + 1 Woman), eight posts were reserved for unreserved category (6 Male + 2 Women). For better appraisal the Applicant-Petitioner includes the advertisement at Annexure-2 requiring submission of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top