This writ petition challenging a 2006 appointment due to alleged locality reservation violations was dismissed as infructuous. The court held that after over 12 years, the appointment was already consummated, rendering the application time-barred and fruitless.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 2769 of 2006
Due to cease work call given by Orissa High Court Bar Association, none appears for the parties. Perused the record.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the appointment made under Annexure-3 in respect of serial no.1 (name of the post Part Time Teacher (Vocational) and further seeks for direction to appoint her against the said post.
As per the pleadings available on record, it appears that opposite party no.5 issued an advertisement on 26.10.2005 for filling up of different posts under S.S.A. Scheme in the district of Gajapati for two Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girl Schools at Gosani and Gumuma blocks. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the post of Part Time Teacher (Vocational) for Gosani block. On consideration of her application, opposite party nos.4 and 5 on 15.02.2006 published office order indicating the selected candidates following selection process dated 12.02.2006 where opposite party no.6 was selected as against serial no.1 for the post of Part Time Teacher (Vocational). The petitioner contended that opposite party no.6 was an outsider and as per the Government instruction, if candidates from locality are available, the other
outsider persons shall not be selected. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for quashing of selection of opposite party no.4 against the said post.
Though this Court vide order dated 06.03.2006 issued notice to opposite party no.6, till date no counter affidavit has been filed. As it appears that the selection has already been done in the year 2006 and pursuant to which opposite party no.6 has already joined in the said post and, as such, while entertaining this application, this Court has not passed any interim order and only observed that the selection and appointment of opposite party no.6 shall be subject to the result of the writ application. In the meantime, more than 12 years have been passed, therefore with efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous.
Ashok
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of a 2006 appointment is maintainable after a lapse of more than 12 years.
Petitioner
Opposite Party No. 4
Opposite Party No. 5
Opposite Party No. 6
Ashok
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
