ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, G.SATAPATHY, JJ.
Government of Orissa – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Urmila Kumari Devi and Anr. – Opp. Parties
W.P(C) No. 14989 of 2010
Decided On : 10-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appointment case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding appointment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of the legal validity. (Para 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. principles on abolition of posts by the state. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R.SARANGI, J.
The Government of Orissa through its Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 13.04.2009 passed in O.A No.1295 of 1998, by which the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, has disposed of the said O.A. directing the petitioner to issue appointment order in favour of opposite party no.1 in the post of Demonstrator in the Drabyaguna discipline, in pursuance of the merit list dated 30.09.2007, and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that opposite party no.1 was initially appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer under the State Service during the year 1992. While continuing as such, she represented to DIM&H(O), Bhubaneswar to utilize her higher qualification in the interest of teaching in Ayurvedic Colleges, as she was a Post Graduate Degree Holder. Considering her grievance, DIM&H(O) deployed her temporarily at Gopabandhu Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya, Puri and assigned her duty to assist in teaching as Demonstrator in the discipline of Dravyaguna vide DIM&H(O) Order No.7756 dated.13.06.95. In the said order it was categorically mentioned that such posting of opposite party no.1 to impart teaching was a temporary arrangement and she would not claim her appointment to the post of Demonstrator as a matter of right.
2.1 An advertisement was published on 05.08.1997 by DIM&H(O) for filling up of 7 vacant posts of Demonstrator in different teaching disciplines of Government Ayurvedic Colleges of the State, out of which 2/3rd of the vacancies were to be filled up from service., i.e., from among the Ayurvedic Medical Officers of Government of Orissa prescribing no age limit for them. So far as Dravyaguna discipline is concerned, two vacancies were advertised to be filled up. The opposite party no.1, being a P.G. holder, had applied for the post of Demonstrator in Dravyaguna discipline.
2.2 In order to select suitable candidates to the post of Demonstrator of Government Ayurvedic Colleges of the State, a Selection Board was constituted by the Government of Orissa in Health & Family Welfare Department, vide Resolution No. 26485/H, dated 29.07.1989. So as to make the selection, prominent expert members of different teaching subjects were nominated by the Government vide G.O. No. 1723/H, dated 26.01.1997. The criteria for selection of Demonstrator were also decided vide G.O. No.26898/H dated 02.08.1989.
2.3 Before conducting interview, the Selection Board examined the applications of the candidates and accordingly a programme was drawn up to call for the candidates for attending the interview on 28.09.1997 and 29.09.1997. As regards filling up of 2 vacant posts in the Dravyaguna discipline, total 6 eligible candidates including opposite party no.1 had applied. All of them were intimated to appear the interview as per programme. All the six candidates belonging to Drvayaguna discipline attended the interview on 28.09.1997 and 29.09.1997. As per the advertisement, 2/3rd vacanccies were required to be filed up from among the in–service candidates and balance 1/3rd vacancies were to be filled up from eligible direct candidates pursuant to criteria fixed by the Government as per G.O.No.32670/H dated 19.09.1992. Out of six candidates of Dravyaguna discipline, 4 were in-service Ayurvedic Doctors and 2 were direct candidates. On performance of those six candidates in the interview, the Board prepared a merit list containing the names of three candidates, out of which one direct and one in- service were enlisted against
AI
The government has inherent power to abolish posts without violating rights if no discrimination is shown; appointment rights depend on vacancies and must follow public selection procedures.
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.
Executive appointments are valid in the absence of formal recruitment rules if conducted fairly and transparently, and only an aggrieved non-applicant can challenge such appointments.
The expiration of a select list due to inaction and erroneous decision of the authorities cannot deprive a selected candidate of appointment.
The court established that merit lists for public appointments must strictly adhere to the prescribed guidelines, and any deviation that introduces favoritism or lacks transparency is subject to judi....
Selection processes must adhere to previously established criteria, and unilateral changes are impermissible once the process has commenced.
Teaching experience for medical positions must be obtained from recognized institutions, and non-compliance with statutory qualifications results in disqualification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.