PRALIPSA ROUT Vs. ODISHA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Odisha University Of Agriculture And Technology
Click here to view full judgement.
P.Patnaik, J. -
(1.) In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction to opposite parties to treat the appointment as regular with regular scale of pay of Rs.9300/-Rs.34800/- + G.P. Rs.4,200/- with effect from 19.09.2014 as mentioned in the Advertisement and further the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the re-engagement order vide Annexure-6 with all consequential service benefits.
(2.) The factual matrix in a nutshell is that pursuant to the Advertisement dated 30.11.2013 vide Annexure-2 for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), the petitioner applied for the said post having requisite qualification and experiences. Seven candidates including the petitioner appeared before the statutory Selection Committee for one unreserved vacancy. The petitioner having stood first among the lot, her case was recommended for appointment and accordingly, she was appointed as per order dated 19.09.2014 under Annexure-4. Though the petitioner was appointed through a regular selection process, but in the appointment order, it was mentioned that the appointment would be on contractual basis. Being aggrieved by such terms of appointment, the petitioner submitted representation on 30.07.2015 vide Annexure-5 and the opposite parties have passed the order on 01.12.2015 vide Annexure-6 modifying the earlier order at Annexure-4 and an order of re-engagement vide Annexure-6 has been issued which is impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order under Annexure-6, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Controverting the averments made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos.1 & 2 wherein it has been submitted that keeping in view of the work load of the Directorate of Physical Plants and as per Resolution No. 3834 of the Board of Management, OUAT, an Advertisement was made to recruit one Junior Engineer in Civil (UR Category) vide letter no. 43095/UAT dated 30.11.2013 with minimum qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering with minimum six years experience in any Govt. Organization. Therefore, a corrigendum was published by the OUAT under Annexure-2 of the writ petition, in which the Advertisement dated 30.11.2013 was modified and the candidates are required to follow G.O. No. 32010/GA, dated 12.12.2013. Further it has been submitted that the engagement of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis as per Notification No. 32010/GA dated 12.11.2013 of the Govt. in General Administration Department, wherein it is stipulated that all the existing vacancies on the date of commencement of the above notification as well as future vacancies shall be deemed to have been converted to contractual posts in notification dated 12.11.2013 as annexed under Annexure-B/1. Therefore the engagement of the petitioner was on contractual basis. Further it has been submitted that since the Government in its notification under Annexure-B/1 has categorically converted the existing vacancies to contractual posts, so the OUAT cannot deviate the same. Though the petitioner has made representation for regular appointment as per Advertisement under Annexure-2, but the same deserves no consideration as per Notification under Annexure-B/1 which says a regular appointment will be made on the date of satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service. But the petitioner got engagement only on 19.09.2014 on contractual basis, so her engagement cannot be regularized before completion of six years. The claim made by the petitioner to count her previous service rendered by her on outsourcing basis is inappropriate and gross violation of Government Rules.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.