Pratap Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

Since common question is involved in all these Writ Petitions, all are heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the selection process initiated by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (in short ‘Commission’) for recruitment to the post of Assistant Training Officer vide Advertisement dtd.31.07.2013, to fill up 489 Nos. of posts on contractual basis in 34 Govt. I.T.I.s and 10 Skill Development Centers in the State under the Directorate of Technical Education and Training (D.T.E.T), Odisha, Petitioners participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the written test held by the Commission on 29.11.2013, the Commission published two common merit list i.e. one for ITI/NAC and another for Diploma / Degree holder. In the common merit list published by the Commission though the Petitioners were included, but in the final select list published on 31.07.2014, when the names of the present Petitioners were not included, some of the Petitioners carried the matter to the Tribunal by filing different original application. But in the meantime basing on the final merit list published on 31.07.2014, the selected candidates were appointed to the post of Asst. Training Officer on 12.03.2015.

4.1. It is contended that Tribunal when allowed the claim of the Petitioners and directed for issuance of the order of appointment, while disposing the batch of Original Applications vide order dtd.29.10.2015, the Commission challenging such order passed by the Tribunal approached this Court. When the writ petition filed by the Commission before this Court against the order of Tribunal was dismissed, the Petitioners were appointed as Asst. Training Officers in the year 2017 i.e. on 22.09.2017.

4.2. It is contended that since for no fault of the Petitioners, their names were not included in the final select list published on 31.07.2014 and the Petitioners were appointed in the year 2017 pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal so confirmed by this Court, Petitioners claiming extension of service and financial benefits approached the Directorate of Technical Education and Training, Odisha. While in some of the cases the prayer has been rejected, but in some cases, no such rejection has been made. Petitioners in some of the writ petitions accordingly have challenged the rejection of their claim so passed by Opposite Party No.3. Petitioners accordingly have prayed for extension of all service and financial benefits including seniority over their juniors on the basis of the common merit list / select list published by the Commission.

4.3. It is contended that in the counter affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Parties in the connected W.P.(C) No.10997 of 2022, the Opposite Parties have admitted that regularization of contractual service of the Petitioners will be regulated in terms of the G.A. Department Notification dtd.17.01.2014 and after regularization of their services, the position of the Petitioners will be placed in the appropriate place in the gradation list of ATOS, considering their merit position in the selection list prepared by the Commission. Learned counsel for the Petitioners accordingly contended that in view of such admission made by the State-Opposite Parties in Para-12 of the counter in W.P.(C) No.10997 of 2022, all the writ petitions be disposed of with a direction on the State / Opposite Parties to carry out the admission made in Para-12 of the counter in letter and spirit.

4.4. It is also contended that even though the State-Opposite Parties have admitted to place the Petitioners in their appropriate place in the gradation list of ATOs after regularization of their services, but since basing on the select list published on 31.07.2014 and consequential engagement of ATOs on contractual basis on 12.03.2015, such ATOs have got the benefit of regularization already in terms of the G.A Department Resolution dtd.17.01.2014 vide order dtd.27.05.2021, Petitioners are therefore entitled to get the benefit of regularization on national basis from the date the 1st batch of ATOs were so appointed.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that in view of the stand taken in Para-12 of the counter affidavit so filed in W.P.(C) No.10997 of 2022, no further order is required to be passed as the State-Opposite Parties have already agreed to extend the Petitioners the benefit of seniority in the rank of Asst. Training Officer, in terms of their position in the select list prepared by the Commission.

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the stand taken in Para-12 of the counter affidavit so filed by the State-Opposite Parties in W.P.(C) No.10997 of 2022, this Court while disposing the present batch of writ petitions directs that after regularization of the services of the Petitioners, in terms of G.A. Department Resolution dtd.17.01.2014, the position of the Petitioners be placed in the appropriate place in the gradation list of Asst. Training Officers, considering their position in the select list prepared by the Commission. However, since for no fault of the Petitioners, the Petitioners were deprived to get the benefit of appointment when similar appointments were made on 12.03.2015, the Petitioners are also eligible to get the benefit of regularization on notional basis w.e.f. 12.03.2015.

All the Writ Petitions stands disposed of.

Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases.

……………………….