Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Pradeep Acharya And Another on 14 August, 2023
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
AFR
W.P(C) NO. 5730 OF 2015
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
---------------
State of Odisha and others ..... Petitioners
-Versus-
Pradeep Acharya and another ..... Opp. Parties
For petitioners : Mr. A.K. Mishra,
Addl. Government Advocate
For opp. parties : M/s. Tanmay Mishra,
D.K. Patnaik, J. Sahoo,
Advocates [O.P. No.1]
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing: 09.08.2023:: Date of Judgment: 14.08.2023
DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioners, who are the State
functionaries, have filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.
No. 221 (C) of 2011, whereby the Tribunal has quashed the
order of reversion dated 10.01.2011 of opposite party no.1
from the post of Auditor to Junior Clerk and directed the
present petitioners to extend all financial and service
benefits of the post of Auditor from the date opposite party
no.1 was reverted to the post of Junior Clerk.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in precise, is that,
opposite party no.1, who was applicant before Tribunal,
was issued with an appointment order in the post of
Auditor of Cooperative Society on 22.01.2009 under the
Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990
and was directed to join in the office of the Assistant
Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Cuttack-I in the Pay
Band-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade
Pay of Rs. 4200/- per month. Pursuant to such
appointment order, opposite party no.1 submitted his
joining report on 27.01.2009. Thereafter, he was
transferred from Cuttack to Dhenkanal on 11.06.2009,
pursuant to which he was relieved from the post on
06.07.2009 and joined at Dhenkanal on 13.07.2009.
2.1 While continuing as such, on 15.09.2009, he
submitted a representation through proper channel to
absorb him in the cadre of Junior Clerk on the ground that
he was unable to perform the duty of an Auditor. But, on
17.09.2009, he made another representation to withdraw
his representation dated 15.09.2009. Again, he submitted a
representation on 03.02.2010 through proper channel for
absorbing him in the post of Junior Clerk on the ground
that he is unable to perform the work assigned to him as
Auditor. As opposite party no.1 was given a temporary
appointment on compassionate ground and he himself
represented twice declaring his grievances that he was
unable to discharge the duties assigned to the post of
Auditor, the same was considered by the petitioners. In the
meantime, the Government in Cooperation Department in
its letter dated 04.12.2010 clarified that as per Rule 7 of
Odisha Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules,
1990, the appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance
Scheme shall be made only against a base level post either
in Group-C or Group-D carrying maximum scale of pay of
Rs.6000/- and Rs.3200/-in pre-revised scale respectively.
Therefore, the appointment of opposite party no.1 to the
post of Auditor was not in accordance with the provisions of
OCS (RA) Rules 1990. Consequentially, the Government in
Cooperation Department instructed the Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies-petitioner no.2 to revert opposite
party no.1 from the post of Auditor to any other base level
post in Group-C, by which the maximum pay scale in pre-
revised scale shall not exceed Rs. 6000/- per month.
Therefore, considering the representation of opposite party
no.1 as well as the orders of the Government, petitioner
no.2 issued order of reversion dated 10.01.2011 reverting
opposite party no.1 to the post of Junior Clerk in the
interest of the State as well as the distress family.
2.2 On reversion, opposite party no.1 was posted in
the office of Assistant Auditor General, Cooperative
Societies, Keonjhar against the existing vacancy, as there
was no vacancy in the office of the Assistant Auditor
General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal in the rank of
Junior Clerk. As opposite party no.1 was reverted to the
post of Junior Clerk, his pay was reduced accordingly and
that too in conformity with the Government guidelines. But
he, instead of joining at Keonjhar, challenged the order of
reversion before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No. 221 (C) of 2011.
The Tribunal came to a finding that once opposite party
no.1 was appointed under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 as
Auditor, there is no scope for change of the post. It was also
observed by the Tribunal that though opposite party no.1
represented for his absorption as a Junior Clerk, yet before
any action was taken on the said representation, he
submitted a letter for withdrawal of the representation.
Once the representation was withdrawn before any action
was taken, there is no scope for petitioner no.2 to pass any
order reverting opposite party no.1 to the post of Junior
Clerk. Therefore, the same is not maintainable and liable to
be quashed. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed petitioner
no.1 to allow opposite party no.1 to function as Auditor, the
post in which he was initially appointed under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, and extended all
financial and service benefits of the post of Auditor from the
date of his reversion to the post of Junior Clerk within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of
the order. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-petitioners admitted the
fact that opposite party no.1 was appointed as an Auditor
under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990 on 22.01.2009, pursuant to
which he joined on 27.01.2009 and continued under the
Assistant Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Cuttack
till 11.06.2009, when he was transferred from Cuttack to
Dhenkanal and posted under petitioner no.3. Pursuant to
such order of transfer, opposite party no.1 was relieved
from the post on 06.07.2009 and joined at Dhenkanal on
13.07.2009. Though such appointment was on temporary
basis, the matter was placed before the Government for its
approval. At that point of time, it was revealed that such
appointment was made in violation of Rule 7 of the OCS
(RA) Rules, 1990, because the appointment should be made
in base level either in Group-C or Group-D and in no way
the pay scale should exceed Rs.6000/- and 3000/-
respectively as per the pre-revised scale. But the post of
Auditor carries Pay Band-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300-
34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- per month. Therefore,
the appointment of opposite party no.1 in the post of
Auditor was absolutely contrary to the provisions of the
Rules. More so, it is contended that opposite party no.1 had
also filed a representation on 15.09.2009 for his reversion
from Auditor to the post of Junior Clerk, but by filing
another representation on 17.09.2009 he withdrew the
representation dated 15.09.2009. But again filed a
representation on 03.02.2010 through proper channel for
absorbing him in the post of Junior Clerk on the ground
that he is unable to perform the work assigned to him as
Auditor. The same was considered and as a consequence
thereof vide order dated 10.01.2011 he was reverted to the
post of Junior Clerk in the interest of the State as well as
the distress family and was posted in the office of Assistant
Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar against
the existing vacancy, as there was no vacancy in the office
of the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative Societies,
Dhenkanal in the rank of Junior Clerk. Because of such
order, the pay of opposite party no.1 was reduced. As the
order of reversion was passed in the interest of the State as
well as on the request made by the opposite party no.1, it
cannot be construed to be a punishment. Therefore, the
Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of
record in passing the order impugned dated 24.06.2014
allowing the opposite party no.1 to continue in the post of
Auditor, for which the same cannot be sustained and is
liable to be quashed.
3.1 It is further contended that since opposite party
no.1 was given appointment in the post of Auditor that
itself is a mistake and when such mistake was revealed, the
same was rectified by issuing the order of reversion dated
10.01.2011 simultaneously considering the representation
filed by opposite party no.1. Therefore, no illegality or
irregularity has been committed and, as such, the
authority, who has committed the mistake, has got the
power to rectify such mistake.
3.2 It is also contended that in spite of the order
being passed allowing opposite party no.1 to join as Junior
Clerk at Keonjhar, he did not carry out the same nor joined
in the said post and not discharging the duty till date.
Thereby, contended that opposite party no.1 cannot take
advantage by not discharging his duty where he has been
posted. Consequentially, claims for setting aside of the
order dated 24.06.2014 passed by the Tribunal.
3.3 It is also contended that on consideration of the
representation of opposite party no.1 dated 03.02.2010 he
was finally reverted to the post of Junior Clerk from the
date of his joining in the post of Auditor of Cooperative
Societies. On reversion, opposite party no. 1 was posted as
Junior Clerk in the Office of the Asst. Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar
against existing vacancy, as there was no vacant post of
Junior Clerk in the office of the Asst. Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal.
Consequentially, he was relieved from the office of the Asst.
Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit
Circle, Dhenkanal, vide relieve order dated 13.01.2011,
which was duly received by opposite party no.1 on
18.02.2011. Apart from that, opposite party no.1 had
submitted a leave application to the Asst. Auditor General
of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal on 17.01.2011 to allow
him E.L. from 13.01.2011 to 11.02.2011 with permission to
avail Government holidays on 12.02.2011 and 13.02.2011.
Vide letter dated 21.01.2011 of the Asst. Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal,
the Opp. Party No.1 was directed to make correspondence
with the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies,
Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar, as he had already been
relieved from the establishment of Dhenkanal on
13.01.2011. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 submitted leave
application to the Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative
Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar on 14.02.2011
requesting to allow him leave up to 20.03.2011. Again, on
21.03.2011, he submitted another leave application to the
Asst. Auditor General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar
Audit Circle, Keonjhar from 17.03.2011 to 10.04.2011.
Thereafter, opposite party no.1 has not joined in the said
post till date as Junior Clerk, as per the monthly progress
report submitted by the Asst. Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle, Keonjhar.
4. Mr. D.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.1 vehemently contended that once
opposite party no.1 was allowed to discharge his duty as an
Auditor on compassionate ground under OCS (RA) Rules,
1990, he cannot and could not have been reverted to the
post of Junior Clerk. Though, he had submitted a
representation at one point of time, but immediately, the
same was withdrawn and, as such, the same had not been
acted upon. As a consequence thereof, any order of
reversion passed by the authority cannot be sustained. It is
further contended that the order passed by the Tribunal,
allowing the opposite party no.1 to continue in the post of
Auditor, is well justified and does not require any
interference by this Court at this stage. He further
contended that even after transfer order was passed by
authority, when opposite party no.1 went to join at
Keonjhar, he was not allowed to join there.
5. This Court heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl.
Government Advocate appearing for the State-petitioners
and Mr. D.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.1 in hybrid mode and perused the
records. Pleadings have been exchanged between the
parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the
stage of admission.
6. The undisputed fact is that opposite party no.1
was issued with an appointment order in the post of
Auditor of Cooperative Society on 22.01.2009 under Odisha
Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and he
was directed to join in the office of the Assistant Auditor
General, Cooperative Societies, Cuttack-I. Thereafter, he
was transferred from Cuttack to Dhenkanal, where the
authorities found that he could not have been joined in the
post of Auditor, because the said post carries Pay Band-2 in
the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs.
4200/- per month. As per Rule 7 of Odisha Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990, the appointment
under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme shall be made
only against a base level post either in Group-C or Group-D
carrying maximum scale of pay of Rs.6000/- and Rs.3200/-
in pre-revised scale respectively. Therefore, the
appointment of opposite party no.1 in the post of Auditor
was a mistake. Simultaneously, opposite party no.1 filed a
representation on 15.09.2009 for absorbing him in the
cadre of Junior Clerk on the ground that he is unable to
perform the duty of an Auditor. But two days after, i.e. on
17.09.2009, he filed another representation to withdraw his
representation dated 15.09.2009. But again he submitted a
representation on 03.02.2010 for absorbing him in the post
of Junior Clerk on the ground that he is unable to perform
the work assigned to him as Auditor. Therefore, for the
mistake which had been committed by the authority by
giving him appointment in the post of Auditor coupled with
the representation filed by opposite party no.1, he was
allowed to join as Junior Clerk reverting him from the post
of Auditor vide order dated 10.01.2011 and was directed to
join at Keonjhar. Instead of joining at Keonjhar, he
remained on leave and filed an Original Application before
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, without considering the facts in
proper perspective, passed the order impugned holding that
once opposite party no.1 was appointed under OCS (RA)
Rules, 1990 as Auditor, there is no scope for change of the
post. The Tribunal further came to an erroneous finding
that once the representation of the opposite party no.1 for
absorption as Junior Clerk was withdrawn before it was
acted upon, there is no scope for petitioner no.2 to pass any
order reverting the opposite party no.1 to the post of Junior
Clerk. That itself is an error apparent on the face of the
record, because the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that
though opposite party no.1 had filed a representation on
15.09.2009 for absorbing him in the cadre of Junior Clerk
on the ground that he is unable to perform the duty of an
Auditor and two days after, i.e. on 17.09.2009 he filed
another representation to withdraw his representation
dated 15.09.2009, but again he submitted a representation
on 03.02.2010 for absorbing him in the post of Junior Clerk
on the ground that he was unable to perform the work
assigned to him as Auditor. On that basis, the action has
been taken reverting opposite party no.1 to the post of
Junior Clerk. Thereby, the Tribunal is not justified by
directing the petitioners to allow opposite party no.1 to
function as Auditor, i.e., the post in which he was initially
appointed under OCS (RA) Rules, 1990. Needless to say,
even if the initial appointment of opposite party no.1 was
erroneous one and such appointment was issued by the
authority on mistake and subsequently if the said mistake
was detected, the same can be rectified by the authority. As
such, in a compassionate appointment, opposite party no.1
has no right to claim for any particular post, but he is
entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment,
which has not been denied to him. Rather he has been
directed to join as Junior Clerk at Keonjhar, in which post
till date he has not joined.
7. In the above premises, the short question that
emerges for consideration of this Court is that if an order of
appointment is made by mistake, can it be revised at a
subsequent stage, when it is brought to the notice of the
authority.
8. To have an effective adjudication of the above
question, it is of relevance to take note of the literally
meaning of the word 'mistake'.
8.1 "MISTAKE" is not mere forgetfulness; it is a slip
"made, not by design but, by mischance". Otherwise also
the "mistake" includes an error in conduct consisting of an
unintended failure to perform correctly and effectively a
task intended to be duly performed. It is something which a
duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the
record. Rectification in the context of correction of mistake
can imply the correction of an error or a removal of defect
or imperfections. It implies an error, mistake or defect,
which after rectification is made right to perpetuate an
error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of
judicial conscience. Vide Maharastra State Seeds
Corporation Ltd. V. Hariprasad Drupadrao Jadhao,
(2006) 3 SCC 690, it has been laid down succinctly that the
statutory authorities are entitled to rectify their mistakes
and when such mistakes are apparent on the face of the
record even no opportunity of hearing is necessary.
9. In West Bengal Electricity Board v. Patel
Engg. Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 682 : (2001) 2 SCC 451, the
apex Court held that a mistake may be unilateral or mutual
but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional it ceases to
be a mistake.
10. In In Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commr.
Trade Tax, U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 439, the apex Court ruled
that the word 'mistake' means to take or understand
wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it
is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception.
11. In the case of State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh,
AIR 1964 SC 521, the respondents were officiating
Tahasildars in the erstwhile State of Pepsu. By notification
dated October 23, 1956 made by the Financial
Commissioner of Pepsu they were confirmed as Tahasildars
with immediate effect. No posts were, however, available at
that time in which the respondents could be confirmed. The
Supreme Court held that there being no vacancies in which
the confirmation could take place, the order of the Financial
Commissioner confirming the respondent as permanent
Tahsildars must be held to be wholly void. It was further
held that where a Government servant has no right to a
post or to a particular status, though an authority under
the Government acting beyond its competence had
purported to give that person a status which it was not
entitled to give, he will not in law be deemed to have been
validly appointed to the post or given the particular status.
12. In the case of Sundar Lal and others v. State
of Punjab, 1970 S.L.R. 59, a full Bench of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court indicated that if owing to some bona
fide mistake the Government has taken a decision
regarding confirmation of an officer, it can certainly revise
its decision at a subsequent stage, when the mistake comes
to its notice.
13. In the case of K.B. Sharma v. Transport
Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1968 Allahabad 276, it was
observed that an order of confirmation, if passed under
some mistake, could certainly be revised with a view to
correct the mistake.
14. In M/s. Maharashtra State Seeds Corpn. Ltd.
v. Haridas & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1480, the apex Court
held as follows:-
"The High Court proceeded on the basis that in
absence of the specific provision the second show
cause notice was impermissible. It failed to
consider that there was no statutory interdict in
this behalf. An administrative order can be
recalled. A mistake can be rectified."
Similar view has also been taken by the apex
Court in Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav v. Secretary, Late
S.G.P. Mandal & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3502; M.S. Patil v.
Gulbarga University & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3783, and
Jayanti Nanda v. State of Odisha and others, 2022 (I)
OLR 1048.
Keeping in view the ratio decided in the above
noted cases, this Court has also taken similar view in Shri
Udayanath Jena v. State of Orissa, 1974 (1) C.W.R. 587
and came to hold that if the mistake was rectified by the
authority when it came to its knowledge, no illegality or
irregularity can be said to have been committed in setting
aside the selection and engagement made in favour of the
petitioner.
15. In view of the facts and law, as discussed above,
the Tribunal has committed a gross error on the face of the
record. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye
of law.
16. At this juncture, it is of worthwhile to note that
in course of hearing, this Court on 23.06.2022 passed the
following order:-
"This matter is taken up through hybrid
mode.
2. Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Additional
Government Advocate seeks time to obtain
instructions why the petitioner has not been
continuing as Junior Assistant after he was
reverted back that post.
3. List this matter after two weeks."
17. In compliance thereto, an additional affidavit was
filed by the State and accordingly this Court passed the
following order on 03.08.2022:-
"This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. In compliance of the Order dated
23.06.2022, an Additional Affidavit has been
filed by the State specifically contending that the
Opposite Party No.1 expressed inability to
perform the duty of an Auditor and prayed to
absorb him in the post of Junior Clerk in the
establishment of Dhenkanal Audit Circle,
Dhenkanal. Considering his representation,
Opposite Party No.1 was finally reverted to the
post of Junior Clerk from the date of his joining
in the post of Auditor of Cooperative Societies. On
reversion, Opp. Party No.1 was posted as Junior
Clerk in the Office of the Asst. Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle,
Keonjhar against existing vacancy, as there was
no vacant post in the Office of the Assistant
Auditor General of Cooperative Societies,
Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal. The
Opposite Party No.1 was relieved from the office
of the Assistant Auditor General of Cooperative
Societies, Dhenkanal Audit Circle, Dhenkanal on
13.01.2011. The said relieve Order was duly
received by Opposite Party No.1 on 18.02.2011.
Opposite Party No.1 had also submitted
application before the Assistant Auditor General
of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal to allow him
E.L. from 13.01.2011 to 11.02.2011 with
permission to avail Government holidays on
12.02.2011 and 13.02.2011. Thereafter, vide
letter dated 21.01.2011, the Assistant Auditor
General of Cooperative Societies, Dhenkanal
informed the Opposite Party No.1 to make
correspondence with the Assistant Auditor
General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit
Circle, Keonjhar, as he was relieved from the
establishment of Dhenkanal on 13.01.2011.
Again, the Opposite Party No.1 submitted leave
application to the Assistant Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar on 14.02.2011
requesting to allow him leave upto 20.03.2011.
Again on 21.03.2011, he submitted another
application to the Assistant Auditor General of
Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar Audit Circle for
leave from 17.03.2011 to 10.04.2011. Since
then, Opposite Party No.1 has never joined and
is absconded till date. Though the Assistant
Auditor General of Cooperative Societies,
Keonjhar, vide letter dated 06.09.2011 was
intimated and required his leave address and
telephone number, but Opposite Party No.1 has
not joined in the office of the Assistant Auditor
General of Cooperative Societies, Keonjhar in the
post of Junior Clerk as on date, as per the
monthly progress report of the Authority.
3. Mr. D.K. Pattnaik, learned Counsel
appearing for Opposite Party No.1 states that he
has received the Additional Affidavit in Court
today and wants to give reply to the same, by
the next date.
4. Call this matter after two weeks. Reply, if
any, be filed in the meantime."
18. On 27.04.2023, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.1 undertook to file an affidavit in
compliance to the order dated 03.08.2022 and accordingly
on 02.08.2023 an affidavit was filed by opposite party no.1.
Accordingly, this Court, vide order dated 02.08.2023,
passed the following order:-
"This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr. D.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing
for opposite party no.1 files an affidavit, in reply
to the affidavit filed by the petitioners, in Court
today, which is taken on record.
4. In compliance of the order dated 23.06.2022,
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the petitioners filed an
affidavit wherein it has been stated that opposite
party no.1 was appointed under the
Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme and on his
request was allowed to continue as a Junior
Clerk. In the said affidavit, it has been indicated
that since vacancy was not available in
Dhenkanal, he was posted at Keonjhar, but did
not choose to join there. But this fact has been
refuted in the affidavit filed by the opposite party
no.1.
5. In the above view of the matter, this Court
directs opposite party no.1 to appear before this
Court on 09.08.2023 and by that time Mr. A.K.
Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the petitioners shall obtain
instructions as to whether any vacancy is
available at Kalahandi, Koraput or Malkangiri,
so that opposite party no.1 can be adjusted
there. 6. List this matter on 09.08.2023.
7. Interim order passed earlier shall continue
till the next date of listing."
19. In compliance to the aforesaid order passed by
this Court, opposite party no.1 appeared in person on
09.08.2023. However, on the said date two affidavits were
filed, one by petitioner no.2 and one by opposite party no.1.
In the affidavit filed by petitioner no.2 at paragraphs 2 to 6
it was stated as follows:-
"2. That this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
02.08.2023 has directed the State Counsel to
obtain instruction as to whether any vacancy is
available at Kalahandi, Koraput or Malkangiri, so
that the Opp. Party No.1 can be adjusted there.
3. That pursuant to order dated 02.08.2023,
this affidavit is being filed.
4. That it is respectfully submitted that
pursuant to Order No.1084, dated 21.02.2019 of
the Auditor General, Cooperative Societies, Odisha,
the post of Junior Clerk has been re-designated as
Junior Assistant (Coop). Xerox copy of Order
No.1084, dated 21.02.2019 is filed herewith as
Annexure-11.
5. That it is respectfully submitted that the
vacancy position of Junior Clerk as directed by the
Hon'ble Court dated 02.08.2023 is as follows:-
Sl. Name of the Asst. No of Remarks
No AGCS Circle Vacancy
03 Malkangiri This
Circle is
yet to be
operation
al/
functional
6. That it is respectfully submitted that the copy
of the list showing the State wise vacancy position
of the Junior Assistant (Coop) as on 01.08.2023 is
filed herewith as Annexure-12."
19.1 Similarly, in the affidavit filed by opposite party
no.1 at paragraphs 2 to 4 it was stated as follows:-
"2. That as per the order dated 02.08.2023 of
this Hon'ble Court passed in the aforesaid case, I
have appeared before this Hon'ble Court today i.e.
09.08.2023. I have gone through the entire
proceedings in my case and the arguments
advanced by both the parties.
3. That during the course of hearing the counsel
for the petitioner-State submitted that there are
vacancies at Koraput, Jeypore and Bhawanipatna.
4. That the petitioner is ready and willing to
join at Jeypore. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to allow the petitioner to join at
Jeypore."
20. In view of such position, since opposite party
no.1 has already expressed that he is ready and willing to
join at Jeypore in the district of Koraput and may be
allowed to join there, this Court directs the petitioners to
allow opposite party no.1 to join at Jeypore, Koraput,
instead of Keonjhar, in the post of Junior Clerk now re-
designated as Junior Assistant against the existing
vacancy. From the date of joining he will get the regular
benefits, as due and admissible to him in accordance with
law. But for the intervening period, i.e., from 10.01.2011 till
the date of joining, he shall not be entitled to get any
financial benefit, as he had absconded and not discharged
his duty. As a consequence thereof, the petitioners are
directed to issue fresh order for enabling opposite party
no.1 to join at Jeypore in the district of Koraput within a
period of fifteen days from the date of communication of
this judgment.
21. Resultantly, the order dated 24.06.2014 passed
by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack in O.A. No. 221 (C) of 2011 is liable to be quashed
and is hereby quashed.
22. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree.
Signature Not Verified (M.S. RAMAN)
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA JUDGE
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 14-Aug-2023 18:27:12 The 14 August, 2023, Arun
th
