Orissa High CourtRVWPET(RP)/48/2019disposed off

Parmesh Kumar Jena v. St And Sc Development Dept.

2022-10-11Dr. Justice B.R.Sarangi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RVWPET (RP) No.48 OF 2019 Parmesh Kumar Jena .....

Petitioner Mr. S. Roy, Advocate Vs.

State of Odisha & Ors.

.....

Opposite parties Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, GA

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

ORDER

11.10.2022 Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.

3. The petitioner has filed this review petition to review the order dated 22.06.2018 passed in O.A. No.1077 of 2017, by which the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar has dismissed the said O.A on the ground that the petitioner being not a resident of Kandhamal district cannot claim for the post of PET.

4. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner applied for the post of PET pursuant to advertisement issued and selected for appointment on the basis of selection made by the authority.

5. On perusal of the records, it appears that the Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani (S.T. & S.C.) Development Section vide advertisement dated 07.09.2016 had invited

applications from eligible candidates for filling up of different posts, in which at Sl. No.6 for one post of PET under U.R. category was advertised. It was mentioned in the advertisement that for Sl. Nos.6, 7, 8 & 9, the applicants must belong to Kandhamal district. Though the petitioner does not belong to Kandhamal district, he applied for the post of PET having requisite qualification. His application was accepted and there was recruitment through certificate verification and on the basis of marks obtained, he stood at Sl. No.1 for the post of PET in the selection list. As the advertisement is very clear with regard to the fact that the candidate must be belonged to Kandhamal district, the petitioner cannot be appointed on the basis of the selection list, which is contrary to the advertisement.

6. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any ground to review the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1077 of 2017. Accordingly, the RVWPET (RP) is dismissed.

Alok DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.