STATE OF ORISSA Vs. MURALIDHAR ROULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Orissa and its functionaries are the petitioners before this Court questioning the legality of the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.204 of 2001.

(2.) THE opposite party, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, had filed three Original Applications vide O.A. No.204 of 2001, O.A. No.2274 of 2000 and O.A. No.229 of 2006. All the three Original Applications were disposed of by a common order impugned before us but this writ application is directed against the order passed in O.A.No. 204 of 2001. The opposite party was appointed as a Junior Stenographer of the District Planning Unit in the scale of pay of Rs.840 -1345/ - in the district of Phulbani. The order of appointment was issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Phulbani. Later the service of the opposite party was regularised. The Planning and Coordination Department issued a letter to the A.G. (A and E) Orissa intimating therein that 13 posts of Junior Clerk -cum -Typist had been created by order dated 30.10.1989. One post of Senior Stenographer was created on 25.7.1984 and the opposite party was asked to work against the said post while continuing as a Junior Stenographer. While continuing in the post of Senior Stenographer, his services were terminated and the said order of termination was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No.204 of 2001. O.A. No.2274 of 2000 had earlier been filed for a direction to the Secretary to Planning and Coordination Department for absorption of the opposite party as a Junior Stenographer in that Department in consultation with the Revenue Department. When this Original Application was pending consideration, the services of the opposite party were terminated and therefore, this case was tagged to O.A. No.204 of 2001, which was filed challenging the order of termination. The other O.A. No.229 of 2006 was filed when the opposite party was asked to vacate the quarter under his occupation. In O.A. No.204 of 2001, it was contended by the opposite party that he had been appointed against a regular vacancy and was later on regularised in the said post. While working as such, after creation of the post of Senior Stenographer, he was asked to discharge the duties of Senior Stenographer but he was receiving the pay of Junior Stenographer. According to the opposite party, if the Department did not want him to continue as Junior Stenographer, he could have been allowed to continue as a Senior Stenographer and the order of termination without any notice is illegal.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate assailing the impugned judgment submitted before the Court that the opposite party was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 26.5.1986 for 89 days in the post of Junior Stenographer created by Planning and Coordination Department vide order dated 10.10.1979 in the District Planning Unit, Kandhamal. He was subsequently given regular appointment in the said post vide order dated 15.7.1986. When a post of Senior Stenographer was created in lieu of the post of Junior Stenographer vide order dated 30.10.1989, without considering adjustment of persons working in the Department, the opposite party who was working in the post created by Planning and Coordination Department was allowed to officiate as Senior Stenographer. The appointment of the opposite party as Junior Stenographer was not through a process of recruitment as required for a Revenue Cadre post and therefore, his appointment to the post of Junior Stenographer was irregular. On abolition of the post of Junior Stenographer, the opposite party could have been appointed as such in the Revenue cadre subject to passing of the recruitment test in terms of the Orissa District and Subordinate Offices Stenographer Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982. But he did not appear in the recruitment examination held in the year 1996. Since the opposite party did not appear in the recruitment examination for being included in the Revenue cadre, the post of Junior Stenographer in the District Planning Section, Kandhamal having been abolished, his services had to be terminated. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the State that the appointment of opposite party not being through a recruitment test, such appointment is illegal and therefore, rightly terminated. Sri Pattanayak, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party had been appointed as a Junior Stenographer through a formal recruitment test and he had been regularised in service in the year 1986 against a sanctioned post. His services having been regularized against a sanctioned post, the question of appearing in another recruitment test for being included in the Revenue cadre does not arise and therefore, the opposite party could have been on reversion from the post of Senior Stenographer adjusted against the post of Junior Stenographer in the Revenue cadre or some other District office.