The petitioner sought a direction to restrain the Orissa State Ware Housing Corporation from recruiting through an outsourcing agency and to conduct selection per 2014 regulations. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the advertisement and the recruitment could not be stalled.
null
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. 15165 of 2019
The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to restrain the opposite parties for selection of recruitment agency for recruitment of different post on behalf of Orissa State Ware Housing Corporation and further seeks for a direction to the opposite parties to make the selection for different posts as per the Orissa State Ware Housing Corporation (Staff Amendment Regulations, 2014).
Mr. D. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a candidate for the post of Assistant Director in the year 1991 and he was called upon to appear in the viva-voce test in the year 1999, but till date result of such examination has not published. It is contended that now the opposite parties are publishing advertisement for recruitment of different category of posts through outsourcing agency without following the procedure of law. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.
Mr. L. Samantray, learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner has no locus to file this application and, as such, at his instance the writ petition is not maintainable. It is contended that even
though the petitioner was a candidate in the year 1991 and thereafter he has been called upon to appear in the viva-voce test and he has not been issued with an engagement order, at his instance the recruitment cannot be stalled.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that at the instance of the petitioner the present application is not maintainable, as he has no locus to challenge the advertisement published by the opposite parties. More so, the recruitment process cannot be stalled at the instance of the petitioner, who was a candidate in the year 1991 for the post of Assistant Director and was not issued with an appointment order.
Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and thus the same is hereby dismissed.
…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
Ashok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the advertisement for recruitment published by the opposite parties.
Whether the recruitment process for the Opposite Parties can be stalled at the instance of the petitioner.
Orissa State Ware Housing Corporation
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
