Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 475 (ORI)

Biranchi Narayan Sahoo v. Union of India

2017-04-26

S.N.PRASAD, SANJU PANDA

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 30.7.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.78 of 2001 is under challenge, whereby and where under the Tribunal has directed to initiate fresh selection process giving reliance upon the order passed in O.A.No.168 of 1990. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a candidate for selection for the post of E.D.D.A., Tentoi Branch Post Office in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 18.1.1999. The selection process was completed, one private opposite party was appointed on the plea that he was more aged than the petitioner, the petitioner has assailed the selection of the private opposite party as illegal, arbitrary as well as discriminatory. The authorities had issued public notice on 19.3.1999 for the same post of E.D.D.A., Tentoi which was challenged in O.A.No.168 of 1999 by one Mitan Kumar Behera and the Tribunal while disposing of the original application has directed the respondents to take such action as is permitted under law to correct the wrong selection made for the post of E.D.D.A., Tentoi. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was eligible but without any material available on record, his candidature has not been considered, hence he has approached to the Tribunal but the Tribunal without appreciating the factual aspect, has directed the authorities to go by the fresh selection in pursuance to the order passed in earlier occasion in O.A.No.168 of 1999. 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous because in pursuance to the order passed by the Tribunal, fresh selection process has already been conducted and as such nothing remains to be adjudicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner had disputed this aspect of the matter and submitted that nothing is on record to substantiate that selection process has already been initiated and concluded. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had disputed this aspect of the matter and submitted that nothing is on record to substantiate that selection process has already been initiated and concluded. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The fact which is not in dispute is that the question of selection to the post in question to be made in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 18.1.1999 was under challenge in O.A. No.168 of 1999 wherein direction has been passed by the Tribunal directing the authorities to take such action as permitted under law to correct the wrong selection meant for the post of E.D.D.A., Tentoi. 7. When that order has been passed, again the same issue has been raised in the original application which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition and the Tribunal after taking note of the order passed in O.A.No.168 of 1999 has directed the authorities to go for fresh selection, to be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of this order. However, conclusion of the selection process has been disputed, but we, after taking consideration the order passed by the tribunal, wherein direction has been passed to conclude the fresh selection process within period of 120 days, are of the view that the said selection process directed to be initiated way back on 30.7.2004 would not have been completed in absence of any interim order passed by this Court to stall the selection process, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner any material in this regard. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned considering the fact as narrated herein above. 8. In view thereof, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.