Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 88 (ORI)

Braja Kishore Panda v. State of Orissa

2012-02-15

B.K.NAYAK, B.P.DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. : The petitioners, who are the employees of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (O.S.R.T.C.) and applied for the post of Assistant Transport Manager in pursuance of the recruitment notice issued by the General Manager (A), O.S.R.T.C., in Annexure-1, have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the communication dated 25.5.2011 issued to them by the General Manager rejecting their applications for the aforesaid post (Annexure-2 series) and to cancel the appointment order dated 30.7.2011 issued in favour of O.Ps.5 to 12 (Annexure-5). The petitioners have also made a prayer to direct the O.S.R.T.C. authorities to allow them to attend the interview. 2.The first ground of the petitioners’ challenge to the appointment of O.Ps.5 to 12 in the post of Assistant Transport Manager and the process of selection is that the selected appointees (O.Ps.5 to 12) did not have the requisite qualification to be considered for the said post, as the recruitment notice carries the essential qualification as B.A., B.Sc., or B.Com having three years experience in any reputed commercial organisation and the departmental candidates having such qualification and experience may also apply and preference will be given to the candidates having M.B.A. qualification in Transport/Financial Management. 3.Counter affidavit has been filed by the O.S.R.T.C. refuting all those allegations. 4.Rejoinder affidavit to such counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioners bringing certain facts on record. A further affidavit to the rejoinder is also filed by the O.S.R.T.C. today in Court. 5.In order to find out the first allegation of the petitioners that the selected candidates (O.Ps.5 to 12) did not have requisite qualification of three years of experience in any reputed commercial organisation, we called for the records of the selection process made by the O.S.R.T.C. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned senior counsel, for the O.S.R.T.C. produces a sealed cover envelop containing the said records. On perusing the same, we found that the selected candidates have the requisite qualification of three years experience in commercial organizations. But this Court cannot express any opinion regarding status and reputation of such organisations. However, this is to the satisfaction of the Corporation authorities in selecting O.Ps.5 to 12 for the post of Assistant Transport Manager. 6.The second ground of challenge of the petitioners is regarding relaxation of age, to which the petitioners claim but the Corporation refuses to accede. Mr. However, this is to the satisfaction of the Corporation authorities in selecting O.Ps.5 to 12 for the post of Assistant Transport Manager. 6.The second ground of challenge of the petitioners is regarding relaxation of age, to which the petitioners claim but the Corporation refuses to accede. Mr. S. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard drew our attention to a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Braja Kishore Panda and others v. State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No.17762/2011 disposed of on 6.7.2011), in which the present petitioners were parties, wherein allegation was made that their applications to the post of A.T.M. were rejected on the ground that they did not fulfill the criteria as per the O.S.R.T.C. Regulation-78 and Rule-54(viii). It was contended then that the said Rules, on the basis of which the applications of the petitioners were rejected, was struck down by this Court, and therefore, the applications filed by the petitioners could not have been rejected. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition directed the Chairman-cum-Managing Director to consider the representation of the petitioners with reference to the judmgent dated 31.1.1986 passed in O.J.C. Nos.688, 705, 716 & 752 of 1978 filed by the State Transport Press Karmachari Sangha and take a decision within fifteen days from the date of communication of the order. In the said judgment, various provisions of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Services) Regulations, 1978 were challenged and ultiamtely, in paragraph-16 of the judgment, this Court was pleased to strike down Regulation 54(VIII) of the O.S.R.T.C., which provided that no relaxation in educational qualification, experience and age will be allowed to them (employees serving in the Corporation to apply for the posts advertised) as being discriminatory. As per the said judgment, it was intended to give relaxation of age, educational qualification and experience to the in-service employees belonging to S.C. and S.T. in-service candidates applying for the posts in pursuance of the recruitment notice. But unfortunately even though the said judgment was passed on 31.1.1986, no action has been taken by the Corporation authorities to make suitable amendment to the Regulations granting such relaxation. The said judgment did not say that such relaxation be given to in-service candidates of general category. But here the fact is bit different. But unfortunately even though the said judgment was passed on 31.1.1986, no action has been taken by the Corporation authorities to make suitable amendment to the Regulations granting such relaxation. The said judgment did not say that such relaxation be given to in-service candidates of general category. But here the fact is bit different. The present petitioners, who are before this Court, are neither S.C. nor S.T. in-service candidates but belong to general category, for which they can not get benefited of the said judgment. Hence, non-consideration of the case of the petitioners for relaxation of upper age limit by the Corporation authorities cannot be faulted with. 7.The third ground of challenge of the petitioners is that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the O.S.R.T.C. has no authority to give appointment to the Assistant Transport Manager but it is the Corporation represented by the Managing Director, who can issue order of appointment. We are of the view that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the said ground in this writ petition, as they have been discarded at the threshold. To decide by this Court the jurisdiction of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in issuing order of appointment would be academic only. That apart, the petitioners have filed their representations before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director in Annexure-3 but challenge the jurisdiction of the said Chairman-cum-Managing Director in the present writ petition. So we are not inclined to delve into those controversies. 8.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. All the interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. The records, which were produced before this Court, are returned to Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned senior counsel for the O.S.R.T.C. B.K. NAYAK, J.I agree. Petition dismissed.