Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith issue appointment letter for the post of Daftary in favour of petitioner.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement for appointment on the post of Daftary for the persons, who are enrolled in Employment Exchange, the petitioner applied through the employment exchange and after going the selection process, it is alleged that the petitioner was finally selected for appointment, but the matter was kept pending and only assurance was given that appointment letter would be issued soon. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation before the authorities but it did not evoke any response.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after selection was made in the year 1991, the respondents for the one reason and another has kept the matter pending, but, it is relevant to mention here that till date the appointment has not been cancelled. Even in the year 2001, again decision was taken by the Establishment Committee for appointment of Daftari with regard to present petitioner. Referring to Annexure 8 to the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the impugned advertisement, person who has been interviewed along with the petitioner for the Post of Assistantcum-Typist has already been appointed. It has further been submitted that now by passage of time, the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit for applying in Govt. Job and kept waiting for appointment letter. It has further been submitted that it is not the case where there is lacuna in selection process by the Establishment Committee or any misconduct has been committed on the part of petitioner; but, without any rhyme and reason, the petitioner had to suffer.;