DR. MANAS RANJAN PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No. 3225(C) of 2009. The petitioner was respondent No. 3 in the Original Application before the Tribunal and the present opposite party No. 3 was the applicant. Case of opposite party No. 3 before the Tribunal was that he had applied for selection , and appointment as Tutor/Senior Resident in the discipline of "Ophthalmology" in the Medical Colleges of the State in response to an advertisement. He was placed at serial No. 1 of the merit list with career marks of 71.97 while the present petitioner had secured career marks of 62.68 and one Doctor Saudamini Panda secured career marks of 61.55. All the three were called for counseling on 5-11-2009 between. 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. and accordingly the present opposite part No. 3 appeared in the Institute of Engineers, Sachivalaya Marg, Unit-V, Bhubaneswar at 3.30 p.m. on 5-11-2009. There he learnt that the present petition has also been recommended for appointment and training (DMET), Orrisa vide memo dated 04.11.2009 i,e, a day prior to the scheduled counseling date. According to the present opposite party No. 3, he had been discriminated against due to the unfair selection process and, accordingly had prayed for a declaration that the recommendation made in favour of the present petitioner by DMET is illegal and also for a direction to the competent authority to appoint him as Senior Resident/Tu tor in the said discipline.

(2.) A counter was filed by the present petitioner wherein it was submitted that the present opposite parry No. 3 did not appear for counseling on the scheduled date at the specified venue and time and due to such default, he could not be selected. The State authorities also filed a counter affidavit taking a similar stand and it was also stated that the selection procedure adopted was fair. The Tribunal on consideration of the respective cases of the parties, allowed the Original Application holding that the selection procedure adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2 was unfair as recommendation memorandum had been signed on 3- 11-2009 by the DMET and was issued on 4-11-2009 whereas the counselling was scheduled to be held on 5-11-2009.

(3.) Assailing the said order of the Tribunal, Shri B.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner referring to the counter affidavit filed by the State authorities submitted that counselling had been fixed to 5th of Nov., 2009 in between 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. but opposite party No. 3 did not turn up and, accordingly, his case was not considered at the time of counselling. Learned counsel for the State supporting the case of the petitioner also took the same stand. Shri J. K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 3 drew attention of the Court to several documents and submitted that name of the petitioner had been recommended for appointment by DMET on 3-11-2009 and the said recommendation had been despatched on 4-11-2009 whereas the date of counselling had been fixed to 5-11-2009.