Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 697 (ORI)

Ananta Charan Sahoo v. Union of India

2017-07-10

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 8th July, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.358 of 2002 is under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal while dismissing the original application has granted no relief to the applicant/petitioner herein for his appointment as Gramin Dak Sebak Mail Carrier due to non-availability of vacancies. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant/petitioner while working as Gramin Dak Sebak Mail Carrier, Jaraka Sub-Post Office had appeared in the examination for promotion to the cadre of Postman/Mail Guard in response to Notification dated 1.2.2001 which was issued by the Superintendent of Post Officers, Cuttack North Division, Cuttack. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to OBC category, the authorities had notified four vacancies, the results of the examination were published on 28.09.2001 declaring two OC categories candidates as successful under outsider merit quota, but no result was announced in respect of rest two vacancies coming within the categories of ST and OBC which were also declared to be vacant as per notification under Annexure-2. Thereupon the applicant made a representation to the authorities to declare the result against the OBC vacancy but however to no effect. The applicant has further submitted that in the said examination he had secured 108 marks out of the total 150 and thus he has secured higher marks than the General candidates. In the circumstances, he was entitled to be considered for appointment on merit basis and that the authorities should have selected him and included his name in the order under Annexure-4 dated 12.10.2001. He has assailed the inaction on the part of the authorities in declaring the result is an act of biasness with an ulterior motive. 3. Per contra the plea of the Department is that initially the authorities had notified four vacancies i.e., for Departmental quota two vacancies (one OC and one ST) and for outsider quota two vacancies (one OC and one OBC). It has been contended that before holding examination and after receiving the instruction from the authorities vide letter dated 16.3.2001, the vacancy position for the said examination was revised and reduced to three by excluding 1 OBC vacancy falling under the category of outsider quota. It has been contended that before holding examination and after receiving the instruction from the authorities vide letter dated 16.3.2001, the vacancy position for the said examination was revised and reduced to three by excluding 1 OBC vacancy falling under the category of outsider quota. The examination was held on 25.3.2001 as such it has been submitted that as per the revised vacancy position, there was no vacancy for outsider quota coming under the category of OBC. The only vacancy in respect of OC category under outsider quota category is under the outsider quota, the authorities has submitted that as per the departmental rules, the post that was to be filled up by outsider quota falling under the seniority quota for which a Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 10.09.2001 wherein one Shri Radhashyam Mallik, belonging to SC community was selected. It has further been contended that the results of the examination was declared on 28.09.2001, since no departmental candidates qualified for the examination, the vacancies reserved for departmental candidates was diverted to outsider merit quota and accordingly those outsider candidates who were declared successful under Annexure-4 were appointed against those posts. It has further been submitted that in that examination 19 candidates qualified, out of which two candidates were given appointment as per Annexure-4 and the list containing the rest of the 17 qualified candidates including that of the applicant was sent to the Office of the opposite party no.1 for consideration, on the basis of these submissions, the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the Original Application before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the rival submission has passed the order giving therein specific finding that no candidates out of 17, whose names were sent to the office of the Chief Post Master General, Bhubaneswar for consideration for appointment in other division could be offered appointment due to non-availability of vacancies. The Tribunal after taking note of this fact has rejected the prayer of the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. The undisputed fact in this case is that the advertisement has been issued for filling up the post of Gramin Dak Sebak Mail Carrier, to that effect a Notification has been issued on 1.2.2001. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. The undisputed fact in this case is that the advertisement has been issued for filling up the post of Gramin Dak Sebak Mail Carrier, to that effect a Notification has been issued on 1.2.2001. Admittedly, the authorities have notified four vacancies i.e., for Departmental quota two vacancies (one OC and one ST) and for outsider quota two vacancies (one OC and one OBC). The vacancy position for the said examination was subsequently revised under the category of outsider quota. The examination was held on 25.03.2001 and as per the revised vacancy position, there was no vacancy of outsider quota coming under the category of OBC. It is evident from the material available on record that the only vacancy under OC category under outsider quota as per the departmental rules, the post was to be filled up by outsider quota fell under the seniority quota, for which a D.P.C. was held on 10.09.2001 wherein one Shri Radhashyam Mallik, G.D.S. DA/MC belonging to SC community was selected. 5. The result of the examination was declared on 28.09.2001 in which no departmental candidates have found to be qualified in the said examination. The vacancy reserved for departmental candidates was diverted to outsider merit quota and those OC candidates who were declared successful were appointed against those posts. It is also evident that 19 candidates were qualified out of which two candidates were given appointment and as such out of 19 candidates 17 qualified candidates remained in waiting list for appointment including the petitioner. It is further evident out of 17 candidates no one has been appointed and as such there is no question of appointment of the petitioner from amongst the candidate who have not been appointed who were 17 in number. The Tribunal after taking this aspect of the matter, has refused the prayer of the petitioner. 6. It is further evident out of 17 candidates no one has been appointed and as such there is no question of appointment of the petitioner from amongst the candidate who have not been appointed who were 17 in number. The Tribunal after taking this aspect of the matter, has refused the prayer of the petitioner. 6. According to our considered view, merely on the basis of the name appeared in the panel prepared by the appointing authority, the candidates have got no legal vested right to be appointed, from the panel if any juniors will be appointed from the said panel, a cause of action will be said to be arisen to the senior candidates but that is not the case herein as because out of 19 candidates two have been appointed and 17 have remained in the waiting list out of which no candidates have been appointed. In view thereof, we find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the order needs no interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.