BIJAY MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed by three petitioners with a prayer to set aside /modify/review/ recall the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 24106 and 24325 of 2011.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the undisputed facts are as follows: The Government of Orissa in General Administrative Department vide its letter dated 17.7.2010 called for nomination of Non State Civil Service Officers for consideration for appointment to two posts of Indian Administrative Service for the year 2010 in accordance with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997 (in short "1997 Regulations"). Initially, 10 names including the names of the present petitioners and opposite party nos.6 to 8 were sent by the G.A. Department for consideration of their case. However, on 25.10.2010, the Government in G.A. Department decided to exclude the name of Niranjan Sethi from the eligibility list of 10 names recommended earlier in view of some vigilance investigation against him. Accordingly, on 9.11.2010 the Selection Committee held its meeting and interviewed 9 officers including the present petitioners and opposite party nos.7 and 8. On 15.11.2010 said Niranjan Sethi submitted a representation against deletion of his name and not calling him to appear in the interview board. Later on Niranjan Sethi filed O.A. No.718 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack with prayer to declare the Selection Committee meeting held on 9.11.2010 for appointment to IAS as per 1997 Regulations as illegal, arbitrary and ab initio void and prayed for conducting the selection afresh. There also Niranjan Sethi made an alternative prayer so as to direct the official respondents to consider his case for appointment to IAS as per 1997 Regulations against two vacancies. O.A. No.718 of 2010 was disposed of on 22.11.2010 with a direction to the UPSC to consider the points raised in the petition dated 15.11.2010. On 19.1.2011 the representation filed by Niranjan Sethi was rejected. Challenging the same, Niranjan Sethi filed O.A. No.33 of 2011 before the Tribunal with the following prayers:

(3.) MR . S.K. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.7 submitted that the present petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties in W.P.(C) Nos24106 and 24325 of 2011. Since in those writ applications order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.33 of 2011 was under challenge he had impleaded only those persons who were already before the Tribunal. Secondly, he submitted that the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No.236 of 2011 has to be read in toto and it cannot be read confining the order to a particular direction as has been interpreted by the petitioners in this case in their written submission. According to the petitioners, the order dated 9.8.2011 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.236 of 2011 meant that Respondent nos.1 and 2 are duty bound to conduct the selection. However, Mr. Padhi, learned Senior Advocate invited our attention to the last sentence of the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.236 of 2011 which reads like thus: