Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 54 (ORI)

Bharat Chandra Nayak v. State of Odisha

2023-01-12

M.S.RAMAN, S.MURALIDHAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ appeal is directed against an order dated 7th December, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.17904 of 2015 whereby the Petitioner had questioned an order dated 11th March, 2015 passed by the Collector-cum-Chairman, Sarva Sikhya Abhiyan (SSA), Balasore rejecting the prayer of the Appellant to be considered as an appointee of the year 2007. 2. At the outset, it must be noted that the aforementioned order dated 11th March, 2015 was passed pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 13th October, 2014 in W.P.(C) No.25561 of 2012 directing that the said writ petition would be treated as a representation and it should be disposed of by a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. 3. The background facts are that an advertisement was published for the engagement of Sikhya Sahayaks (SS) in 2006 for different districts in Odisha including the Balasore District. 4. In the provisional list of SS published on 20th December, 2006 for the Khaira Block of Soro DI Circle of Balasore District, the Appellant's name figured. However, in the revised final list published in 2007, his name did not appear. The Appellant then filed W.P.(C) No.4245 of 2008 in this Court, which was disposed of on 28th March, 2008 with a direction to the Collector, Balasore to dispose of the Appellant's representation dated 20th December, 2007 within a period of three months from that date. 5. When the Collector failed to do so, the Appellant had to file contempt petition being CONTC No.160 of 2009 after which on 26 th March 2009, the Collector disposed of the Appellant's representation and ordered as under: '(i) The name of Gangadhar Kandi be degraded to just below of U.R. category of the final panel list and in place of Sri G. Kandi, the name of Badal Pakal be inserted after which resultant effect be given. (ii) Similarly, from final panel list of SEBC category, the name of Badal Pakal be deleted and in such place, the name of the petitioner, Sri Bharat Chandra Nayak be inserted after which resultant benefit be extended to petitioner. (iii) DPC, SSS, Balasore, DI of Schools, Balasore-II, Soro are to give effect to above observation. Besides they are to serve this order on Petitioner.' 6. (iii) DPC, SSS, Balasore, DI of Schools, Balasore-II, Soro are to give effect to above observation. Besides they are to serve this order on Petitioner.' 6. When despite the above order, the District Project Coordinator, Balasore did not implement it and instead on 16th June, 2009 asked the Appellant to appear in his office for his case to be considered on the basis of materials available on record, the Appellant filed for the second time W.P.(C) No.11612 of 2009 challenging the said letter dated 16th June, 2009. 7. On 19th November 2009, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Collector to ensure that his earlier order dated 26th March, 2009 is implemented within seven days. 8. It is only thereafter on 18th December, 2009 an engagement order was issued appointing the Appellant as SS. 9. For the third time, the Appellant had to file W.P.(C) No.25661 of 2012 for a direction to the Opposite Parties to treat him as a 2007 appointee since the delay in getting his appointment was entirely due to the fault of the Opposite Parties. That writ petition came to be disposed of on 13th October, 2014 by the learned Single Judge as noted hereinbefore. 10. When the Appellant's request was rejected by the order dated 11th March, 2015 by the Collector, a fourth writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.17904 of 2015 was filed, which had been dismissed by a non-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge in one paragraph. 11. This Court has heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 12. It has indeed been a long and arduous process for the Appellant to ensure that the Opposite Parties act according to law. At every stage the Opposite Parties had delayed the implementation of this Court's orders. In fact, the delay in issuing the Appellant his appointment order was also entirely due to the Opposite Parties. Having figured in the provisional merit list way back on 20th December 2006, the Appellant had to file two writ petitions and one contempt petition for the engagement order to be issued. It must be recalled here that on 26th March, 2009 itself the Appellant's representation has been accepted in toto and he was asked to be appointed. Yet, the engagement order was issued only nine months later on 18th December, 2009. 13. It must be recalled here that on 26th March, 2009 itself the Appellant's representation has been accepted in toto and he was asked to be appointed. Yet, the engagement order was issued only nine months later on 18th December, 2009. 13. The order dated 26th March, 2009 correctly noted that the Appellant belongs to SEBC category and that his name should be inserted in place of another SEBC candidate who on merit was adjusted against a UR vacancy. If the said order had been correctly and promptly implemented then there would have been no difficulty as far as the Appellant is concerned. 14. Learned counsel for the Appellant made it clear that he is not asking for any arrears of pay but only notional benefit of treated as a 2007 appointee. In the considered view of this Court, there should be no difficulty for the Opposite Parties to accept this request. Since in the 2007 batch the Appellant remained in the SEBC category and the others having already moved to UR category on merit, there should be no difficulty if the Appellant is asked to be placed at the bottom of the 2007 batch of appointees. That way, the seniority of the others in that batch will not be affected. 15. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Collector on 11th March 2015, this Court directs that the Appellant will now be treated as a 2007 appointee and placed at the bottom of 2007 batch in the SEBC category. The order giving effect to this direction be issued within a period of four weeks from today. 16. The writ appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.