four vacancies out of 20 sanctioned vide letter dated 13.06.2008. It is contended that the petitioner, who has been selected pursuant to the advertisement issued earlier, has not been extended the benefit, though vacancies are existing. In order to substantiate such contention, he has relied upon the information provided under Section 6(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, where total vacancy, due to retirement as on 25.07.2012, has been indicated as ‘six’,, and vacancy due to promotion has been indicated as ‘three’. Therefore, it is contended that since vacancies are available, there is no need for fresh advertisement, pursuant to the order dated 16.01.2014 passed by the General Manager, OSAM Board, Bhubaneswar. Thereby, the case of the petitioner can be taken into consideration for appointment against the vacant posts made available. In view of such position, it is contended that the order under Annexure-5 dated 16.01.2014 should be quashed and liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file a representation within ten days hence so that the same can be considered against the vacancy position indicated in Annexure-6, within a stipulated time.
