DEBARCHAN MAHANANDIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who had appeared at the interview conducted by Bamra Trust Fund College for the post of Lecturer in Oriya, has filed this petition for review/ recall of the order dated 6.8.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1724 of 2009.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 3.1.1995 (Annexure-1), the petitioner and opposite party no.5 appeared at the interview for the single post of Lecturer in Oriya in which the opposite party no.5 stood first, but the petitioner was issued with appointment letter No.445 dated 15.9.1995 vide Annexure-3. Pursuant to such appointment letter, the petitioner joined on 20.9.1995. Opposite party no.5 pursuant to the appointment letter No.446 dated 15.9.1995 also joined on 18.9.1995. It is stated that the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner against the 3rd post of Lecturer in Oriya vide letter No.445 dated 15.9.1995, whereas appointment letter No.446 dated 15.9.1995 was also issued in favour of opposite party no.5. There was a gap of two days in submitting the joining report by opposite party no.5 vis- -vis the petitioner against the 3rd post of Lecturer in Oriya. Since two persons joined against one single post, opposite party no.5 approached the Director, Higher Education challenging the appointment of the petitioner. On consideration of the grievances made by opposite party no.5 and on perusing the records and materials available, the Director Higher Education approved the appointment of opposite party no.5 against the 3rd post of Lecturer in Oriya vide order dated 14.01.2009 (Annexure-9). Challenging such order passed by the Director, Higher Education, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.1724 of 2009, wherein he urged that he being a candidate coming under the reserved category in the selection for the post of Lecturer in Oriya, the provisions of the O.R.V.Act had not been followed, thereby he had been put to harassment by the college authorities and further it was urged that there was non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court found no error in the order passed by the Director, Higher Education and accordingly dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 06.08.2014. Hence, the present review application.

(3.) Mr.S.K.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition strenuously urged that the question of reservation though pleaded, while disposing of the writ petition, the same has not been taken into consideration. In addition to the same, it is urged that there was non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the order impugned suffers from error apparent on the face of the record the same needs to be reviewed/ recalled by this Court. It is further urged that while doing so, this Court should take into consideration the documents, which were filed as Annexures-6, 7, 8 and 9 of the writ application. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon Ambika Prasad Bhatta v. Nehru Paribesh Surakshya Committee, 2002 2 OrissaLR 543.