AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow them to join their duties immediately and forthwith as well as to pay the salary for the month of December 2003 when they had joined services and discharged their duties.
The facts of the case of the petitioners are that in response to an advertisement (Annexure-1) inviting applications from eligible candidates for their appointments on the post of Constable in the State Police services, the petitioners had applied in the category of schedule tribe and in the advertisement the number of seats reserved for the scheduled tribes category was also mentioned.
The petitioners were given letters informing that they were selected and directing them to report at the Tatisilwai Unit of the respondents. The petitioners reported on the date specified before the concerned authorities at the Tatisilwai Unit and their services after being taken for about 23 days, was suddenly terminated. The grievance of the petitioners is that having been served with the appointment letters (Annexure-3 series) and after allowing them to render their services for more than 23 days, the respondents cannot terminate the services of the petitioners without adopting the procedure established by law for such termination.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken is of total denial of the claim made by the petitioners. It is sought to be explained that though in the advertisement published, certain number of vacancies were also shown as existing and reserved in the scheduled tribe category and in response to which applications were received from several persons including the applications of the petitioners and their applications on being considered, the petitioners were provisionally selected and letters were issued accordingly to them vide Annexure-3 series informing them about their provisional selection and calling upon them to appear at the police unit at Tatisilwai. However, even as indicated in the letters (Annexure-3 series) no formal appointment was given to any of the petitioners and it was declares that appointment was to be given only after completing and exhausting the other requite procedures prescribed for recruitment and appointment. It is further explained that on verification it was subsequently detected that the vacancies in the scheduled tribe category did not exist on the date of advertisement and due to inadvertence, the advertisement had incorrectly mentioned the existence of vacancies in the scheduled tribe category. It is stated that though applications were received from members opting for reservation in the scheduled tribe category, but in absence of any vacancy in the said category, no appointment could possibly be given to any candidate.
Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the case, I find that Annexure-3 series, on which the petitioners have based their claim, does not suggest that the same are letters of appointment. Rather the letters categorically declare that it should not be treated as a letters of appointment. By these letters the petitioners were merely informed that they have been selected but such selection would not amount to appointment unless other requites procedures for recruitment are exhausted.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner invites attention to a statement chart issued by the Mess authorities of the respondent and submits that the statements indicate that the petitioners were also provided with Mess facility for about 23 days and this statement chart confirms the fact that the petitioners were accepted in service and their services were taken by the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently denies the above submission and explains that merely because the petitioners may have been provided with some facility in the Mess, it in itself does not confirm that the petitioners were granted appointment and their services were taken.
As rightly pointed by the counsel for the respondents, the statement-chart of the officer of the Mess does not confirm that the petitioners were either appointed in service or that their services were taken for any number of days. The facts, on the other hand, inform that the petitioners were never granted any appointment and there is no document produced by the petitioners to confirm that they were accepted in appointment by the respondents. Mere selection does not give any right of appointment to the petitioners.
In the light of the above discussions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.