Amar Dalai vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 9313 Ori

                                        1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                   W.P.(C) No.25908 OF 2021

Amar Dalai                                    .....                     Petitioner

                                                         Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
                                      Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                        .....             Opposite parties

                                                           Mr. S.N. Nayak, ASC


            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                              ORDER

06.09.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to antedate his appointment from 18.02.1994, i.e. the date from which the batch mates and juniors in the merit list have given appointment as Ophthalmic Assistant and grant all consequential service and financial benefits.

4. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by following due procedure of selection pursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-1, the petitioner was selected as Ophthalmic Assistant, but he was not extended the benefit, for which he approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.393(C) of 1994 and the said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.1995 with a direction that if vacancies are available, the applicants be given appointment against the existing vacancies. In case vacancies are not available, future vacancies should be made available to them and they should be appointed against such vacancies on the

basis of their merit. The said judgment was challenged before this Court in OJC No.494 of 1999 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 25.08.2005 under Annexure-8 by the Division Bench of this Court with direction to the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner against the general post of Ophthalmic Assistant in compliance with the Government order dated 07.10.1995 within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. In compliance thereof, the petitioner was issued appointment order on 07.04.2006 under Annexure-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if selection has been done in the year 1994, the petitioner could not have given appointment w.e.f. 07.04.2006, rather his appointment should relate back to the similarly situated batch mates and juniors and he should be extended all consequential service and financial benefits. By treating the petitioner as new entrant w.e.f. 07.04.2006, he is grossly prejudiced. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming his appointment from 18.02.1994 i.e. the date from which the batch mates and juniors in the merit list have been given appointment as Ophthalmic Assistant and consequential service and financial benefits from the said date.

5. Issue notice to the opposite parties.

3. Three extra copies of the writ petition be served within three days on learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, as he appears for opposite parties no.1 to 3 to enable him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.

Alok (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)