Delays and changes in reservation policy cannot preclude entitled candidates from receiving appointment benefits, affirming their rights based on prior sponsorship and eligibility.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Since all these Writ Petitions involve similar issues, all were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. However for the sake of brevity, pleadings made in WPC(OAC) No.2425/2014 was taken as the lead case.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioners in these batch of Writ Petitions on passing their Diploma in Civil Engineering, their names were empanelled in the list prepared by the Chairman Committee of Chief Engineer & Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Civil, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.2.

4.1. It is contended that taking into account their position in the panel, names of all the Petitioners were sponsored by the Committee-Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dtd.05.02.2014 under Annexure-5 for their appointment as Junior Engineer on contractual basis to Opposite Party No.1.

4.2. It is contended that all the Petitioners belong to SEBC category and all these Petitioners in the present batch were sponsored for being appointed by the Panchyatiraj Department -Opposite Party No.1.

4.3. It is contended that after being so sponsored vide letter dtd.05.02.2014 under Annexure-5, pursuant to the letter issued by Panchyatiraj Department on 15.02.2014 under Annexure-6, all the Petitioners got verified their documents during the period from 18.02.2014 to 22.02.2014. After such verification of the documents, Petitioners were placed with allotment to different districts as found from the document enclosed by Opposite Party No.1 in the further affidavit filed before this Court vide Annexure-J/1.

4.4. It is contended that in spite of such step being taken by Opposite Party No.1 by placing the Petitioners to different districts, no formal orders of appointment were issued in their favour and accordingly Petitioners could not get the benefit of appointment and consequential joining as against the post.

4.5. It is contended that Petitioners when were not issued with such orders of appointment, the present batch of Writ Petitions were filed originally before the Tribunal with a prayer to provide appointment to the Petitioners as their names were duly sponsored by the Committee and they were found eligible for such appointment after due verification of the documents, as found from Annexure-J/1.

4.6. It is contended that initially a counter affidavit was filed by the State through Opposite Party No.1 inter alia taking the stand that names of the present Petitioners were sponsored by the Committee vide letter dtd.05.02.2014, which includes 188 numbers of SEBC candidates (Male-129, Women-59). The aforesaid 188 SEBC candidates were so sponsored taking into account the reservation prevailing at that point of time for SEBC category candidates at 27%. But pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 21.12.2013 in O.A. No.1417 of 2012, percentage of reservation meant for SEBC category candidates was reduced from 27% to 11.25%. Because of such reduction of the percentage of the reservation meant for SEBC category from 27% to 11.25% as against 188 SEBC candidates so sponsored, only 84 numbers of SEBC category candidates could be provided with the appointment, which includes 56 Male and 28 Female candidates. Names of the rest 67 Male SEBC category candidates and 35 Female SEBC candidates were surrendered to the Committee by Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dtd.04.07.2014 under Annexure-11.

4.7. It is contended that a stand was accordingly taken that due to reduction of the percentage of reservation meant for SEBC category candidates from 27% to 11.25 %, out