Orissa High Court
Nayak Jyothi vs State Of Odisha & Others on 13 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12910 OF 2019
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India)
Nayak Jyothi ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.D.K.Pani,
Advocate
-versus-
For Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 5 : Mr.S.N.Das, A.S.C
For Opposite Party
No.6 : Mr. S. Palai,
Advocate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
13.2.2023.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has approached this Court with
following prayer;
"Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
would graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi
calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to
why the order date 11.7.2019 passed by the Sub-
Collector, Bhawanipatna directing the B.D.O.,
Narla to reject the fresh panel list prepared on
1.6.2019 by the Selection committee for
engagement of Jogan Sahayak in Tulapada G.P.
shall not be quashed/set aside and why the said
panel list shall not be approved by the Sub-
Collector and why the petitioner shall not be
issued with engagement order as Jogana Sahayak
for Tulapada G.P. and if the Opp. Parties failed
to show cause or show in sufficient or false cause
make the Rule Nisi absolute and allow this Writ
Petition with cost."
2. The facts of the case are that as per advertisement published on
25th May, 2012 for engagement of Jogan Sahayak in respect of
different Grama Panchayats in the district of Kalahandi, a selection
process was initiated, and on 7th October, 2013, the B.D.O., Narla
submitted the panel list of eligible candidates basing on which the
Sub-Collector, Bhawanipatna approved the same and directed the
B.D.O. to engage the selected candidates. It is stated that one Debi
Prasad Senapati was the selected candidate for Talapada Grama
Panchayat, who joined on 30th December, 2013. After working for
nearly two years, the said Debi Prasad Senapati submitted his
resignation on 10th August, 2015, which was accepted. The post
having fallen vacant an advertisement was issued by the B.D.O.,
Narla on 26th May, 2018. The Petitioner applied in pursuance of
such advertisement. The panel list was prepared on the basis of the
selection in which the Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.1. However,
when the panel list was sent to the Sub-Collector for its approval,
by order dated 11th July 2019, the Sub-Collector referring to an
order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11194/2016 rejected the
fresh panel list and directed the B.D.O. to appoint the 3rd candidate
of the approved panel list prepared pursuant to the first
advertisement on the ground that the validity of the panel list is for
a period of one year. The said order, which is enclosed as
Annexdure-11 to the Writ Petition, is impugned.
3. Heard Mr. D.K.Pani, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr.
S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
4. Mr. Pani has contended that the impugned order is completely
illegal inasmuch as firstly, after completion of the selection process
and engagement of the selected candidate in the concerned post the
question of the panel list remaining valid does not arise. Secondly,
this Court in W.P.(C) No.11194/2016 had not passed any order
directing the authorities to revive the panel list already acted upon.
5. Mr. S.N.Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State,
submits that the Petitioner by being placed in the list does not
acquire any vested right to be appointed. However, he fairly
submits that there was no question of acting upon the panel list,
which had already been acted upon.
6. After considering the rival submissions and having gone through
the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the selection
made in pursuance of the first advertisement issued on 25th May,
2012 came to an end on the engagement of the selected candidate.
Nothing has been mentioned in the said advertisement or in the
panel list prepared, copy of which is enclosed as Anenxure-3
series, regarding its validity after completion of the process of
selection. It is also the settled position of law as held by the Apex
Court in the case of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. V.
Delson Davis; reported in AIR 2002 SC 332: (2002) 2 SCT 998
wherein it was observed as follows;
"We fail to understand the reasoning of the High
Court in this regard. When once the selection
process is complete and appointment had been
made, that process comes to an end and if any
vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the
post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh
vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the
appropriate rules should be taken. This view is
fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of
Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma and another,
2002(2) SCT 234 (SC):JT 2001 (9) SC 266. Any
temporary arrangement made during the
interregnum will not entitle respondent No.1 to
claim for permanent employment. In that view of the
matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order
made by the High Court and dismiss the Writ
Petition filed by the Respondent No.1.
7. There is no dispute that the Petitioner applied pursuant to the
advertisement issued to fill up the vacancy occurring after
resignation of the earlier incumbent. There is also no dispute that
the Petitioner was placed at Sl. No.1 of the panel list.
8. Thus the authorities could not have taken note of the earlier
panel list, more so in purported compliance of the order passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.11194/2016. In the said case, this Court,
inter alia, had passed the following order;
"In view of the law laid down by the apex Court, the
order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Sub-Collector,
Bhawanipatna cannot sustained in the eye of law.
Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and the
matter is remitted back to the Sub-collector,
Bhawaniapatna for reconsideration and passing a
reasoned order within a period of two weeks from
the date of communication of this order in
accordance with law by affording opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner."
9. From a conspectus of the analysis of the contentions and the
position of law referred to hereinbefore, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the impugned order under Annexure-11
in rejecting the fresh panel list cannot be sustained in the eye of
law. Resultantly, the order under Annexdure-11 is quashed. The
Opposite Parties-authorities are directed to act upon the panel list
under Annexure-10 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within
a period of four weeks.
10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
..................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
