This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision refusing appointment as Gramin Dak Sebak Mail Carrier. The court held that lack of vacancies precluded appointment and a namelisted does not vest a legal right to service.
The writ petition is dismissed; the Tribunal's order needs no interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) No.8720 of 2004
In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ananta Charan Sahoo …… Petitioner
Union of India and others …… Opposite Parties
For Petitioner :M/s. Dillip Ku. Mohapatra, L. Kabi & A.K. Kar.
For Opposite Parties :Mr. J.K. Mishra & Mr. A.K. Bose (ASG)
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE SANJU PANDA &
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Date of hearing and judgment : 10.07.2017
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
3
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.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
4
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.
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
5
number. The Tribunal after taking this aspect of the matter, has refused the prayer of the petitioner.
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.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th July, 2017/RRJena
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's claim for appointment due to non-availability of vacancies.
Whether appearance in the merit panel vested the petitioner with a legal right to appointment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ananta Charan Sahoo
Union of India
S. N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
