SUSANTA KUMAR SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2011 is filed at the instance of the petitioners who are the unsuccessful candidates in the matter of appointment for the posts of Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-1.

(2.) In filing the writ petition W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2011 the petitioners therein sought for quashing of the selection of the opposite party nos.6 to 25 vide Annexure-3 as well as the order of the Collector under Annexure-14 and further sought for a direction to the Collector, Puri to appoint the petitioners as Sikshya Sahayak in the S.T. backlog vacancies against which the opposite party nos.6 to 25 have been appointed and also for grant of all consequential service benefits. The petitioners further also sought for quashing of the orders under Annexures-10 and 11 passed by the opposite party no.1 in order to facilitate appointment of the S.C. candidates in the vacancies caused due to non-availability of the S.T. candidates in exercise of power U/s.6 of the ORV Act.

(3.) Factual background involved in the W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2011 is that the petitioners and the opposite party nos.6 to 25 were all the candidates for the post of Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to an advertisement issued vide Annexure-1. It is averred that following the scheme of the Government and the inputs in the advertisement, the provisions of the O.R.V. Act are also applicable to the selection of Sikshya Sahayak. It is, therefore, a proportionate number of posts were kept reserved for the S.C., S.T. and other reserved category candidates in the process of selection of Sikshya Sahayaks. The advertisement claimed to be further stipulating that untrained S.C. and S.T. candidates can also be exchanged in the event of non-availability of trained S.C. and S.T. candidates. Petitioners involved in the first writ petition are all scheduled caste candidates belonging to Delanga Block having '+2' qualification to their credit. On completion of the selection process in all categories except 238 number of vacancies for want of S.T. candidates, the petitioners claimed that the S.T. vacancies should have been filled up by the S.C. candidates following the provisions contained in Section 6 of the O.R.V. Act. It is alleged that the Collector instead of moving to the Government to de-reserve 238 numbers of reserved posts of S.T. candidates in order to enable them to fill up the vacancies by taking the candidates from other category, somehow for some communication at Government level, the panel list for 2006 stood invalid on 22.12.2007 and as a consequence, 237 number of posts as against S.T. vacancies remain unfilled. The request of the petitioners to fill up the said vacancies by enhancing the number of candidates belonging to S.C. category was turned down at appropriate level. In the meantime, in another development a communication was made to the effect that in the event, there are no S.C. and S.T. candidates available, the Collector may be advised to fill up those vacancies on temporary basis. In a subsequent development, it was also decided to fill up the S.T. vacancies by taking the candidates from the panel/select list of 2006 in order of merit from the unreserved category at Annexure-10, resulting some candidates of the Puri District approached this Court in filing W.P.(C) No.12248 of 2008. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the vacancies with regard to the post of Sikshya Sahayak shall not be filled up from the select list of the year 2006 and the authorities to take expeditious steps for initiation of a fresh recruitment process and engage the candidates from the select list. It is alleged that despite the above direction of this Court, the Government vide its letter dated 14.11.2008 directed the Collector to fill up the balance vacancies involving 81 number of posts by taking candidates from the general category after obtaining undertaking from the selected candidates to the extent that engagement will be on purely temporary basis till the S.C. and S.T. candidates are available for induction. It appears, in the meantime, the Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department directed to replace the general candidates by S.C. candidates, those who have been appointed as Sikshya Sahayak against the S.T. vacancies. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached the Collector-cum-C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Puri for their appointment but the Collector-cum-C.E.O. rejected their claim, resulting the W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2011. It further appears, this writ petition was disposed of earlier by the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 31.8.2012. In the meantime, a review petition was filed which was also dismissed on 10.5.2013. The order of the Hon'ble Single Judge was challenged in W.A. No.237 of 2014 in the Hon'ble Division Bench and the W.A. No.237 of 2014 was allowed by setting aside the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge, the Hon'ble Division Bench directing therein that the writ petition shall be heard after making the persons likely to be affected, as parties to the writ petition. Consequent upon amendment of the cause title by bringing the opposite party nos.6 to 25 to the fold of consideration of the writ petition, the writ petition required re-adjudication.