AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a direction to opposite party Nos.4 and 5 to issue appointment orders in their favour and also to pay compensation to them for the negligence and disobedience of the opposite parties in that regard with the appropriate order(s)/direction(s) issued on the grounds inter alia that the same is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice.
According to the petitioners, there was a promise for appointment of locals in the lower grade services in the defence factory situated in the district of Balangir, which has not been upheld, rather, illegalities were committed in the appointments made in the establishment contrary to the assurance given by the then Hon’ble Prime Minister, inasmuch as, malpractices have been alleged in the selection and appointments. The petitioner’s plea is that some of them are Matriculates and others are Graduates and Post-Graduates and they belong to the district of Balangir and keeping in view of the backwardness of the area, the Government of India took a decision to establish the Ordnance Factory and its foundation stone was laid in 1984 and at that time, it was declared that the people of the district would be given suitable appointments and in connection therewith, necessary guidelines were issued, as per which, the applications were invited from the Employment Exchanges for Group-C and Group-D posts with preferences to the locals and in response to the same, the names of the petitioners were sponsored and in addition to that, some outsiders, who were not eligible, obtaining false certificates in support of residency, appeared the interview and at last, the Selection Committee prepared a list for 463 candidates, out of which, 172 were appointed. It alleged by the petitioners that some of the selected candidates are outsiders and by fraud managed the Residential Certificates and applied for the posts and received appointments thereafter contrary to the guidelines issued for the selection. The claim of the petitioners is that their names find place in the select list of 463 candidates but when opposite party Nos.3 to 5 did not issue any appointment orders in favour of the rest candidates of the list released even though vacancies were available, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and 60 others approached this Court in O.J.C. No.15454 of 1997 with a demand to quash the entire process of selection for the posts of Danger Building Workers (DBWs) and after scrutiny and enquiry to prepare a list excluding outsiders therefrom and also to direct the CBI to enquire into and investigate the illegalities committed in the appointments and therein, while accepting the process of section to be proper, it was directed that if there is any fraud and misrepresentation practiced by any of the candidates with false Residential Certificates managed to obtain the employment, it shall be enquired into by the appropriate authority in accordance with law granting the opportunity to the petitioners to point out the names of the selected candidates, who are outsiders and in that, the Collector and also the General Manager of the Ordnance Factory to hold a joint enquiry into such allegations concluding it within a reasonable time. The aforesaid order of this Court is of the year 1998 and as alleged by the petitioners, till today, it has not been complied with in spite of repeated representations of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in O.J.C. No.15454 of 1997. It is alleged that the petitioners herein are found in the selection list and are extremely poor and ran from pillar to post and approached the Ordnance Factory and also the Collector, Balangir number of times claiming that altogether 49 candidates were outsiders and had been illegally employed on the basis of false Residential Certificates submitted by them and till date, opposite party Nos.5 and 6 are unable to complete enquiry in respect of eight candidates and as such, no action has been taken against them either by terminating their services or lodging of FIR for the reasons best known to the Ordnance Factory. A copy of the order in O.J.C. No.15454 of 1997 is at Annexure-1. It has been alleged that the representation addressed to opposite party Nos.5 and 6 from the year 2013 and onwards have not been attended to in compliance of the direction of this Court in O.J.C. No.15454 of 1997.
It is pleaded on record that opposite party No.6 made a communication to opposite party No.5 to comply the order at Annexure-1. In pursuance of the order dated 11th August, 1998 in the O.J.C., opposite party Nos.5 and 6 constituted a Committee to conduct a joint enquiry into the allegations made in the writ petition but even after a long lapse of time and in spite of continuous persuasion by the petitioners and others, they have failed to comply the same. Without complying the order, it is further pleaded by the petitioners that instead of appointing them and others from the select list prepared in 1997, opposite party No.5 issued an advertisement in 2010 for recruitment to the posts of DBWs, which was protested and for that, they approached the Ordnance Factory once again not to proceed with the selection and appointment before such compliance, which was put on hold pursuant to the letter dated 14th September, 2010 to opposite party No.5 as per Annexure-3.
As per the petitioners, though opposite party No.5 did not proceed with the selection subsequent to the advertisement (No.2 of 2010), but the order of this Court in O.J.C. was not complied with by completing the enquiry as was directed therein to find out the candidates, who received appointments on the basis of false Residential Certificates. For nearly seven years, no selection was made nor the enquiry was concluded, but thereafter, opposite party Nos.4 and 5 issued a fresh advertisement to fill up the vacant posts of the Ordnance Factory which was again objected by the petitioners with a request to opposite party No.6 to post-pone the recruitment till completion of the enquiry by a representation i.e. Annexure-4. It is alleged that for the reasons best known to opposite party No.6, no any order or request was made to opposite party No.5 not to fill up the posts advertised and in pursuance of the fresh advertisement against the total vacancy of 252 DBWs, opposite party No.5 selected 115 candidates and rest of the posts remained vacant and a selection list was prepared as per Annexrue-5.
The petitioners have undergone unimaginable suffering and torture due to their unemployment and poverty and even though, they were selected and found in the selection list and the opposite parties neither complied the order at Annexure-1 nor considered their grievances, it is also alleged that opposite party Nos.5 and 6 did not provide the details of the enquiry, which were obtained under the Right to Information Act as at Annexure-6 series. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners approached this Court to direct opposite party Nos.3, 4 and 5 to issue appointment orders to them to the posts of DBW and also to find out the candidates who committed the fraud and managed the appointments thereby complying the direction issued in the O.J.C. It is alleged by the petitioners that due to the laches, negligence and disobedience of the opposite parties for many years, they have suffered immensely and are still unemployed, hence, therefore, necessary direction is required to be issued towards their appointment as DBWs. It is claimed that in spite of the earlier recruitments, vacancies are still available to be filled up, as against which, the petitioners could be accommodated and in so far as, the enquiry is concerned, it should be completed with consequential action being taken, as in the meantime, more than twenty years have gone by.
It is also pleaded that the petitioners have lodged an FIR leading to the registration of Saintala PS Case No.77 of 2018, but again, the investigation is very slow and for that, a complaint is also filed before the CBI, Bhubaneswar to register a case and to investigate into to the allegations of mischief committed in the selection process and since, it was not registered, one of the petitioners filed CRLMP No.903 of 2018. With the above pleading, the petitioners alleged that no effective steps have been taken by the Ordnance factory to cancel the appointments of outsiders and miserably failed to comply the order in the O.J.C. dated 11th August, 1998 and therefore, in that regard, a direction is absolutely necessary and also to ensure issuance of appointment orders in their favour besides granting compensation to them for the negligence and laches of the opposite parties.
Opposite party Nos.3 to 5 filed a counter and pleaded therein that against the order in the O.J.C. at Annexure-A/3 dated 11th August 1998, Civil Review No.163 of 1998 was filed, however, it was dismissed by order dated 7th December, 2009 (Annexure-B/3) due to non-prosecution. After dismissal of the review petition, the District Collector, Balangir constituted the Committee consisting of Sub-collector, Titilagarh and others including the representative of the petitioners for a joint enquiry into the allegations pursuant to the order in the O.J.C., who submitted its report dated 26th September, 2011 apprehending genuineness in the residence eligibility of eight candidates. A copy of the said report is at Annexure-C/3, referring to which, it is further pleaded that the GM, Ordnance Factory, Badmal forwarded the same by letter dated 25th July, 2012 (Annexure-D/3) to the Collector, Balangir for filing of compliance report before this Court. The original report i.e. Annexure-C/3 and the corrected one at Annexure-D/3 were received by the Collector, Balangir, who thereafter passed the order dated 31st July, 2012 as per Annexure-E/3 directing therein that the GM, OFBL, Badmal is required to find out the cases of appointment given to the persons without being sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and to take necessary legal action in accordance with the directions issued in the O.J.C. It is also pleaded that the Collector, Balangir took up the matter with the Employment Exchange Office, Balangir/Titilagarh enquiring about genuineness of the Residential Certificates by a letter dated 2nd July, 2013 i.e. Annexure-F/3, in response to which, it was informed that the listed candidates are genuine duly registered in the District Employment Exchange, Balangir and other Employment Exchange Offices and such intimation was received vide Annexure-G/3.
Even a contempt petition in CONTC No.294 of 2003 was filed followed by an order dated 28th February, 2005 and therein as per Annexure-H/3, it was dismissed on the ground of delay of more than four years. It is pleaded that there is compliance of the order in the O.J.C. in view of the decision of the Collector, Balangir vide Annexure-E/3 subsequent to the receipt of the reports of the Committee constituted to look into the allegations of the petitioners. In the meantime, after a meeting held on 25th March, 2015, the Collector, Balangir by letter dated 22nd May, 2015 intimated the Ordnance Factory to take action against eight candidates, who have obtained employment by submitting fake Residential Certificates and it was clarified by letter dated 19th June, 2015 that no action is required since the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and hence, allowed to participate in the recruitment process and no one was appointed without being so sponsored. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 as at Annexure-K/3, it is pleaded that the function of employer is only to place requisition with the Employment Exchange to fill up the vacancies and since, no one has been appointed without being sponsored, the enquiry shall have to be treated as closed.
It is pleaded further that the Ordnance Factory was set up at Badmal in the district of Balangir in 1985. In line with the scheme proposed by the Government of Odisha vide letter No.6856/C dated 27th December, 1985 and keeping in view the basic requirements with proper rehabilitation necessary, the Government of India, Department of Environment, Forest & Wildlife by letter dated 9th September, 1986 and MoD letter dated 31st August, 1987 accorded sanction with conditions imposed, one of which was to the effect that the families, who were to be displaced on account of the project for the Ordnance Factory shall be rehabilitated. It is claimed that there was never any commitment for rehabilitation/employment to any other category of persons beyond the instructions received from Government of India which related to employment in the factory only on account of displacement, inasmuch as, there has been rehabilitation in respect of the displaced families but for others, they had to appear the recruitment and the regular selection process.
This Court in the O.J.C. held that the selection process does not suffer from any infirmity, but if there were any fraud and misrepresentation practiced by any candidates with false Residential Certificates obtained, it should be dealt with in accordance with law. It is pleaded that seven candidates were also found to be genuine being sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. Furthermore, the employer shall not entertain any application from a candidate in response to an advertisement or notice unless he or she has a valid registration from any Employment Exchange in the State and complying the same in terms of the Labour & Employment Department Resolution No.7693 dated 8th June, 1999, the applications were invited and since the seven candidates were sponsored accordingly, hence, the allegation by the petitioners that they are outsiders is totally baseless.
The list prepared in the year 1997 is no more valid as it was followed by subsequent recruitment in 2000 and therefore, it cannot be given effect to and in so far as, the recent recruitment is concerned, the Ordnance Factory Recruitment Centre (OFRC) invited online applications to fill up the vacancies of Tradesman and Labour in Ordnance Factory located across India as against 465 posts (445-Tradesman and 20-Labour) and the written examination was held on 10th September, 2017 and therein, a select list was prepared. With regard to the vacancies in the Ordnance Factory, it is pleaded that 1997 were filled up and also in 2000 with respect to 52 vacancies and therefore, the petitioners cannot be adjusted when the said lists lost its validity. It is lastly pleaded that the selection process is found not to suffer from any infirmity as concluded by this Court in the O.J.C. and in so far as, the fraud and misrepresentation practiced by some of the candidates alleged by the petitioners, it was enquired into and at least seven candidates, whose residency was doubted, found to have been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges situate within the district of Balangir, hence, there is compliance of the order and directions issued therein and hence, no further inquiry is necessary.
Perused the affidavits to the counter of opposite party Nos.3 to 5 dated 4th April, 2024. Gone through the affidavit dated 25th May, 2024 filed by the petitioners in reply to the additional affidavit of opposite party Nos.3 to 5.
Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Brahma, learned ASC for the State, and Mr. Moharana, learned CGC appearing for opposite party Nos.3 to 6.
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the facts pleaded on record and would submit that there has been gross negligence and disobedience on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the appointment orders to the petitioners and concluding the enquiry in respect of the allegations into the selection process and in the meantime, nearly 30 years have elapsed since the selection. It is contended that in spite of the order in the O.J.C. which is concerning enquiry into the fraud in the selection process, no result has been achieved. The contention is that at the time when the Ordnance Factory was to be set up, there was an assurance by the then Hon’ble Prime Minister ensuring employment for the local candidates but it has been given a goby by as candidates who are outsiders managed the selection by falsely procuring the Residential Certificates. The very purpose for which the promise was to provide employment for the locals before the Ordnance Factory was set up has been frustrated as further submitted. Even 7-8 candidates as against whom doubt was entertained by the Committee with its reports submitted, according to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, no action followed suit, hence, there has been no any compliance of the order in the O.J.C. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel alleges large-scale mischief in the selection process and injustices caused to the petitioners. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, reminding the Court, the invaluable advice of late Sri C. Rajagopalachari extracting a day-to-day record of his life in Vellore jail in 1920 dated 24th January, 1922 in ‘Jail Diary’ so as to achieve Swaraj with better governance affected by corruption, injustice, inefficiency of administration etc., submits that the case at hand is such an instance grossly inflicted by one of such maladies. The further contention is that the petitioners are eligible and they participated in the selection process in 1997-98 and their names were found in the selection list but received no appointments and despite a direction for an enquiry into the allegations regarding employment of outsiders in the Ordnance Factory, no real progress is achieved. It has been alleged that the petitioners are still not given employment and not only that, the enquiry was not completed and as such, there is no compliance of the order in the O.J.C. as the enquiry was with regard to the mischief committed by some of the candidates, who not being locals but outsiders managed their residency and got themselves sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and therefore, a direction is needed to ensure that the petitioners, who are over-aged, should be given employment against the posts of DBWs and simultaneously, to direct opposite party Nos.5 and 6 to conclude the enquiry.
Recorded the submissions of Mr. Brahma, learned ASC for the State referring to the affidavit of opposite party No.6.
Mr. Moharana, learned CGC for opposite party Nos.3 to 6, on the contrary, denies the allegations of the petitioners regarding any such illegalities committed in the selection process and would submit that all the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. It is further submitted that enquiry was held by opposite party Nos.6 and in fact, a Committee was constituted and upon receiving the reports, it was concluded that there has been no any illegality. With respect to the residency, it was, however, directed by opposite party No.6 that further enquiry is necessary and for that Mr. Moharana, learned CGC submits that in compliance of the order of this Court in O.J.C. not only enquiry was held but also a compliance report was produced. The contention is that this Court in O.J.C. held that the selection has been conducted properly and there is no illegality and in so far as, outsiders are concerned, all the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and it was obligated on the part of Ordnance Factory to entertain them and accordingly, they participated in the selection process. Since, no evidence received towards any illegal selection held while filling up the posts of the DBWs and for that, even an enquiry was held with a Committee constituted, Mr. Moharana, learned CGC submits that as there has been no fraud and misrepresentation proved and established, the claim of the petitioners is inappropriate. It is contended that the further selections have been made with appointments given to the selected candidates and in so far as, the panel list of 1997 is concerned, it is no more valid and therefore, notwithstanding any such vacancies available, the petitioners cannot and could not be accommodated. It is lastly contended by Mr. Moharana, learned CGC that neither the petitioners can be appointed against any posts as the vacancies available in 1997 were filled up thereafter with recruitments having taken place nor in absence of any fraud proved regarding the residency of any of the candidates including seven of the candidates selected found to have been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and hence, the plea of the petitioners cannot be entertained and therefore, the writ petition filed by them shall have to be dismissed in limine.
After having considered the pleadings on record from both the sides, this Court finds that the petitioners have challenged the appointment of non-local candidates, who do not belong to the district of Bolangir, in the establishment of Ordnance Factory. From the order dated 11th August, 1998 as at Annexure-1 (Annexure-A/3 of the counter of opposite party Nos.3 to 5) in OJC No.15454 of 1997, it is understood that the selection process found not to have suffered from any infirmity, however, since the allegation of the petitioners is about fraud and misrepresentation by some of the candidates after obtaining false residency certificate for employment, a direction was issued therein for a joint enquiry by the Collector, Bolangir and General Manager, Ordnance Factory to ascertain the truth and in case, any of the appointments found to be illegal, the same shall be deemed to have been cancelled with necessary consequences to follow. So, this Court found the selection process conducted by following due process of law. Only a direction was issued therein to cause an enquiry into the allegations of the petitioners claiming fraud and misrepresentation and in managing appointment of some of the candidates in the Ordnance Factory.
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners claims that there has been no proper enquiry held and concluded even after so long in gross disobedience to the directions in OJC No.15454 of 1997. The further claim is that the opposite parties failed to comply the direction issued for which the petitioners have suffered. It is alleged that the petitioners’ sufferings for having not employment received in the Ordnance Factory is on account of laches, negligence in disobedience of the opposite parties in not complying the order of this Court in the. The said claim of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel is stoutly denied by the opposite parties.
Mr. Moharana, learned CGC in reply to the above submits that enquiry was conducted and the findings made therein and such enquiry has been held in compliance of the Court’s order (supra) and refers to Annexures-C/3 and D/2 which are the reports of the Joint Enquiry Committee. On perusal of the said reports, it is made to reveal that the first phase of the verification of residence status of the alleged DBWs working in the Ordnance Factory was conducted on 4th April, 2011 and the second phase on 21st April, 2011. It is also made to understand that such reports were received by the Collector, Bolangir as per Annexure-D/3. This Court finds that further verification by the Joint Enquiry Committee was held on 23rd November, 2011 and it was in the presence of the petitioners but without any representative of the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Bolangir. In fact, such enquiry was held on the basis of a fresh list comprising of 45 DBWs received from the petitioners and pursuant to the decision of the Collector, Bolangir, such enquiry was conducted. The report (Part-II) with all details about the enquiry is at Annexure-C/3. Not only that the Collector, Bolangir upon receiving the reports, to reach at a decision and to search out of the persons, who have managed to be sponsored by the Employment Exchanges did correspond with the Employment Exchange, Bolangir vide Annexure-F/3 and it was responded to vide Annexure-G/3 stating therein that on verification of the records, the names of the candidates received for verification found to be genuine registrants of the District Employment Exchange and Employment Exchange Office, Titilagarh. It is further made to understand that upon receiving the reports of the Joint Enquiry Committee, the Collector, Bolangir proceeded further in order to ascertain as to whether the seven candidates found to be non-locals and therefore, the candidature was subjected to further enquiry with a letter vide Annexure-F/3. But, according to the District Employment Officer, Bolangir as per Annexure-G/3, while responding Annexure-F/3, there was no such specific requirement/instruction for sponsoring the names of the candidates of the residents of Bolangir district only. It was further intimated that the registered candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges of Bolangir district on the basis of seniority, age and qualification required for the posts of DBW as mentioned in the notification and according to the norms of the National Employment Service Manual. Even thereafter, further correspondence took place in between the Collector, Bolangir and General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Badmal, Bolangir as per Annexure-I/3, wherein, it is mentioned that the Joint Enquiry Committee found eight workers employed basing on the fake residence certificates and therefore, steps are to be taken in accordance with the directions issued and the same is received and responded vide Annexure-J/3, wherein, it was intimated that during the recruitment of DBW in 1997, the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges within the district of Bolangir only were allowed to participate therein and no candidates have been appointed without being sponsored and therefore, no steps are required to be taken in that regard.
From Annexure-G/3, it is understood that the registration of candidates in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir has been allowed in accordance with the letter Nos.6867/LE dated 23rd August, 1988 of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Odisha and letter No.10023 dated 4th November, 1996 of the Director of the Employment, Odisha, Bhubaneswar subject to falling in one of the categories, such as, (i) permanent residents; (ii) outsiders who have resided in the locality for more than 12 years; (iii) a regular employee either of the Government or Public Sector or Private Sector and his or her spouse and his/her dependents; (viz) children, dependent brothers or sisters, who normally resided with him or her; (iv) as employed person working at least two years in the area. The said criteria fixed by the Government have been reproduced in Annexure-J/3 indicating therein that there are no specific requirements/instructions for sponsoring the names of the candidates, who are residents of the Bolangir district. Since there was a decision to call for the names in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir, it was received by the Ordnance Factory for the purpose of recruitment which was held thereafter. The claim of the petitioners is that some are outsiders and hence, could not have received appointments in the Ordnance Factory. But considering the reply of the District Employment Officer, Bolangir as per Annexure-G/3, it is made to understand that any of the categories of the candidates earmarked by the Government can register himself in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir and not necessarily the locals, who are residents of the district. Subsequent to the intimation of the Collector, Bolangir vide Annexure-I/3, the response of the Ordnance Factory as per Annexure-J/3 is that the criteria fixed for registration of the candidates in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir have been followed. It has been replied therein that eight candidates, who have been found by the Joint Enquiry Committee being non-residents of Bolangir district, are not ineligible and it is claimed that there has been no fake residential certificate produced by any of them and furthermore, the appointments on the ground of residency cannot be insisted upon in view of the settled law that a right to appointment cannot be restricted on the ground of residence as it would amount to discrimination and when, the Labour and Employment Department vide Resolution No.7693 dated 8th June, 1999 laid down the provision on recruitment stipulating therein that the employer shall not entertain any application from the candidates in response to the advertisement or notice for a post unless he/she has valid registration certificate from an Employment Exchange.
In the case at hand, even candidates who have been found to be non-residents are registered in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir and therefore, received their employment. The question is whether on the ground of residency but being a non-local, any such appointment may be challenged by the petitioners. Considering the reply and response of the District Employment Officer, Bolangir as per Annexure-G/3 and also of the Ordnance Factory vide Annexure-J/3, this Court finds that in accordance with the directions of the Government in Labour and Employment Department, the registration in the Employment Exchanges has taken place. Even though eight candidates were found not being the local residents of the Bolangir district identified by the Joint Enquiry Committee, their registration in the Employment Exchanges of the district said to have been allowed in terms of the guidelines received from the Labour and Employment Department, Government of Odisha and also Directorate of Employment, Odisha. Such registration of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, Bolangir is found to be on the basis of the candidates’ seniority, age and qualification as required for the posts of DBW indicated in the notification form and as per norms of the National Employment Service Manual. If the alleged candidates identified as non-locals or not being permanent resident of the district and having been allowed registration complying the criteria of the Government, any of their selection/employment in the Ordnance Factory cannot be subjected to challenge. As such, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court from the side of the petitioners that only locals are eligible and entitled to employment in the Ordnance Factory. The case of the petitioners rests on the allegation of fraud and it needed investigation but since some of the candidates who received appointments found to have validly registered themselves in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir and have accordingly been sponsored on receiving requisition from the Ordnance Factory in the recruitment of the year 1997, the claim that the selection is not in accordance with law is wholly misplaced.
The petitioners were local residents participated in the recruitment process but could not qualify and found to be below cut-off mark. The result sheet is on record but then in the final merit list, the names of the petitioners did not find place and therefore, could not be selected for the posts advertised. This Court finds that there is no any serious lapse or illegality committed in the selection of eight candidates, whose names were revealed by the Collector, Bolangir for necessary action at the end of the Ordnance Factory. Merely for not being locals of the Bolangir district by itself cannot be a ground for the petitioners to challenge the candidature of some of the appointees, who have been found registered in the Employment Exchanges of the district. As this Court, while disposing of OJC No.15454 of 1997 concluded that the selection process suffers from no infirmity but for verification of the claims of the petitioners regarding fraud and misrepresentation of some of the candidates, who had applied for the posts, considering the joint enquiry reports and the request of the Collector, Bolangir vide Annexure-I/3 having received a reply claiming eight candidates identified are the registrants of the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir, it leads to a conclusion that no one from outside of the district was sponsored but the candidates, who registered themselves in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir in response to the requisition received from the Ordnance Factory. The criteria fixed for registration in the Employment Exchanges within the district are subject to complying the guidelines issued from time to time by the Department of Labour and Employment and the Directorate of Employment, Odisha, Bhubaneswar which included outsiders having resided in the locality for more than 12 years; also some, who are employed; including the residents of at least two years in the area besides the permanent residents and employees of the Government, Public Sector Undertakings and their spouses and dependents. The joint enquiry report simply refers to the non-residency of the candidates being not locals but then having invited sponsorship of the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir, it is expected the candidates, who are registered in terms of the guidelines of the Government are eligible for applying to the posts of DBW. The enquiry does not reveal any such fraud to have been committed by the non-locals. It only reflects the enquiry to have revealed eight candidates to be non-locals but having considered response of the Ordnance Factory and that registered candidates have been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir only, there is no escape from the conclusion that all the validly registered candidates are eligible and entitled to apply and appear in the recruitment held by the Ordnance Factory. No further enquiry has been conducted to find out whether eight candidates identified by the Joint Enquiry Team are not fulfilling the criteria of the Government in Labour and Employment Department. The petitioners alleged that enquiry is still on without a final finding but in the considered view of the Court with so much exercise having taken place to find out the fake candidates in the appointment, without any iota of evidence on record to even remotely suggest that the identified candidates against whom the Collector, Bolangir suggested for action and the necessary steps from the side of the Ordnance Factory found to them to be the registrants of the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir satisfying the criteria and norms of the Government and the guidelines issued in that regard and also by the Directorate of Employment, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the challenge on any such ground should finally be brought to an end.
The additional affidavit and the affidavit filed by the opposite parties need a reference before winding up. In fact, opposite party Nos.3 to 5 filed an affidavit dated 4th April, 2024 to claim that the result sheet at Annexure-L/3 is not the merit list which is at Annexure-N/3 revealing therein that out of 463 aspirants, 172 candidates were selected and additional 17 candidates were kept in reserve as per the ranking on the total marks scored by them. Furthermore, it is claimed that even there are no Government instructions for reservation or any special treatment to the original residents of Bolangir district as against the assurance of the then Hon’ble Prime Minister. Mr. Moharana, learned Central Government Counsel submits that considering the instructions of the Government of India, there has been rehabilitation of 1020 displaced families with employment of one of the members of such families in the Ordnance Factory. A reference has been made to the approval for diversion of forest land and rehabilitation package for the families displaced vide Annexure-O/3 and the earlier proposal of the State Government as per Annexure-N/3 addressed to the Secretary, Defence Production and Supplies, Government of India. It is also pleaded therein that all the vacancies except filled through UPSC and Staff Selection Commission are to be held as per the prevailing Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) instructions vide Office Memorandum No.14024/2/77-ESTT (D) dated 13th April, 1977 and accordingly, the Ordnance Factory sent the requisition for recruitment of the posts of DBW in 1997 to the Employment Exchanges of Bolangir district only and as a result, the names of the candidates were sponsored and have been considered for recruitment. Having regard to the above and the response of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that necessary employment has been provided to each of the members of the displaced families in accordance with the decision of the Government revealed from Annexures-O/3 and N/3. Not only that the candidates found to have been sponsored by the Employment Exchanges of the district in accordance with the Government of India instructions. It is reiterated that the candidates fulfilled the criteria for registration in the Employment Exchanges, hence, have been sponsored including said eight candidates identified as non-locals of Bolangir district. But then there has been no any material to show that any of them fraudulently managed the registration. Rather the District Employment Exchange responded by claiming that the candidates identified as non-locals have been validly registered in the Employment Exchanges of the district. At the cost of repetition, it has to be held that in absence of any other adverse/incriminating materials on record to suggest that none of the said candidates fulfilled the criteria fixed for the purpose of registration, the inevitable conclusion would be that they are eligible for being sponsored and accordingly, participated in the selection process. The reports of the Joint Enquiry Committee reveal that the petitioners were aware of the proceedings and claimed to have participated in the verification process as Observers. Even though, it is claimed that there has been no proper sittings having taken place in the immediate presence of the Collector, Bolangir since the Joint Enquiry Team led by Sub-Collector, Bolangir carried out the verification of the candidatures and it has been detailed in the reports with a decision that there has been findings about the candidates being non-locals and it has been received by the Ordnance Factory, in the ultimate view of the Court, it has to be held that substantial enquiry has been held and at this distinct point of time, no further exercise is necessary, rather, the chapter should be closed.
Apart from the challenge herein, the case has a chequered history and it has been brought to the notice of the Court by opposite party Nos.3 to 5 in the affidavit dated 4th April, 2024, which needs a brief reference. It is revealed from the record that against the order in OJC No.15454 of 1997, a review was filed in 1998 disposed of on 7th December, 2009 as it was not pressed. From the side of the petitioners, CONTC No.294 of 2003 was filed and it was for non-implementation of the Court’s order dated 11th August, 1998 in OJC No.15454 of 1997 disposed of by a judgment dated 28th February, 2005 dismissing the same for being barred by limitation in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971. The challenge from the side of the Ordnance Factory in Civil Review No.163 of 1998 was followed by an order of dismissal i.e. Annexure-B/3 to the counter affidavit and similarly, the decision in the contempt proceeding at Annexure-H/3 thereof. After 1997, apart from the review order and order of dismissal in CONTC No.294 of 2003, challenges have been made in connection with the recruitment, details of which, are disclosed in the affidavit dated 4th April, 2024 of opposite party Nos.3 to 5, according to them, the selection process was held in terms of the Government guidelines and on receiving the names sponsored by the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir only. Not to repeat but to state and conclude, the candidates who found to be non-locals have had valid registration in the Employment Exchanges of the district and hence, included in the list of names sponsored and accordingly, they participated therein.
In fact, the Collector, Bolangir filed an affidavit dated 21st November, 2024 stating therein about the details of the report and the inquiry made into the allegations of the petitioners and its verification. Such an affidavit was filed in compliance of the directions by orders dated 13th May, 2024, 20th September, 2024 and 8th October, 2024. In the meantime, an advertisement was published inviting offline applications from the aspiring candidates fulfilling the requisite qualification/criteria against the vacancies for tenure based DBW on contractual terms to work in the Ordnance Factory for a period of one year, which may be extended up to four years from the date of initial engagement vide Annexure-10 thereto and perhaps considering the same, this Court by order dated 16th May, 2025 directed that the petitioners, if they are so advised, may make applications to be considered for such engagement for a year. Against the aforesaid background, this Court is of the humble view that in so far as the selection process of the year 1997-98 is concerned, it has been followed by inviting applications sponsored by the Employment Exchanges of the Bolangir district only. Since it was alleged that outsiders have received appointments, consequent upon the order in OJC No.15454 of 1997, Joint Inquiry Committee verified the credentials of the alleged candidates and at last could figure out eight of them as non-locals and considering the fact that they are found to have been validly registered in the Employment Exchanges in the district of Bolangir in terms of the guidelines of the Government of India in Labour and Employment Department and such other instructions, in absence of any such material to show that any of them has not fulfilled the criteria stipulated, there can be no action to follow. This Court considered other affidavits filed complying its directions from time to time but then the final conclusion would be that even after verification carried out by the Joint Inquiry Committee to this far, nothing could be revealed to substantiate the allegations of the petitioners. Whenever the lists of names were provided by the petitioners, inquiry had been conducted with the verification of the credentials of the candidates. It has been consistently argued by opposite party Nos.3 to 5 that the Ordnance Factory as an employer is only required to place requisitions with the Employment Exchange for filling up vacancies lying with them and since none to have been appointed without being sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, the inquiry in connection with the selection process vis-‡-vis appointment of DBW of the year, 1997 may have to be treated as closed for good and in connection therewith, Apart from the above, Mr. Moharana, learned CGC refers to the details of the exercise undertaken by the Ordnance Factory, Badamal, Bolangir in collaboration with the District Administration in the acquisition of land for the purpose of establishment of the Ordnance Factory at Badamal, Bolangir and rehabilitation of the displaced families. It has been the submission that each family affected on account of the Ordnance Factory being set up was given employment and there is no such any instruction from Government of India to provide jobs there being locals of Bolangir district. The submission of Mr. Moharana, learned CGC is that the Employment Exchange replied to the Collector, Bolangir on verification of records and found that the alleged candidates’ registration to be genuine.
Referring to an order dated 7th May, 2002 in OJC No.4822 of 2002 challenging an advertisement for recruitment of Group-D Posts in the Ordnance Factory, it is brought to the notice of the Court that a similar plea was dismissed with an observation that there is no decision in OJC No.15454 of 1997 to the effect that the recruitment should be confined to the local people, rather, it would be better, if the same advertisement is given wider publicity as there is an equal right to apply for any employment for the citizens of the country and confining selection of the people of a particular locality would be clearly an undue restriction on the rights of the citizens and amount to deprivation of the right to equal opportunity in the matter of employment. It is informed to the Court by Mr. Moharana, learned CGC that pursuant to the order dated 16th May, 2025 of this Court and AdvertisementNo.1002/Tenure/DBW/PER(RC)/OFBL/2025, seventeen petitioners submitted their applications for engagement as DBWs in the Ordnance Factory at Badamal, Bolangir and the Scrutiny Committee verified the applications after allowing age relaxation to them as was directed but found that none having essential qualification and no one submitted National Apprenticeship Certificates from NCTVT, hence, as a result, it had to be rejected.
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the locals interest have not been taken into consideration from the very beginning, rather, sidelined in the employment and would claim that there has been lot of illegalities in the selection and appointment and the malpractices committed by some of the candidates, who are outsiders, have gone undetected for the casual and lackadaisical attitude and approach of the authorities concerned and hence, the Court’s indulgence is demanded and also to ensure the employment of the petitioners, who are from one of the most backward districts of the Country. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel repeatedly reminded the Court, the words of wisdom of late C. Rajagopalachari referring to an Excerpt of his ‘Jail Diary’. But it is made to appear that upon receiving the complaint from the petitioners, there has been an inquiry vis-a-vis the candidates on one-to-one basis with verification of their records and credentials and at last, it revealed that though eight of them are not locals but found eligible to apply registration in the Employment Exchanges in the district being residents and hence, were sponsored along with others and thus, participated in the selection process.
There have been no any instructions of the Government to confine the employment in the Ordnance Factory for the local residents of Bolangir district. As rightly said by this Court while dismissing OJC No.4822 of 2002 that recruitment cannot be confined to a particular region as it would amount to undue restriction and deprivation of equal right to employment. Any such selection for a post shall have to fulfill the criteria and qualification. If anyone does not have qualification and fits into the criteria of selection, he or she cannot be considered for employment in Ordnance Factory even though a local. This Court while disposing of OJC No.4822 of 2002 dealing with a similar claim challenging an advertisement inviting applications for the posts in Ordnance Factory, Badamal Bolangir, dismissed the same for the reason stated hereinbefore referring to a decision of the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh Vrs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others (1996) 6 SCC 216, as it was reiterated therein that there shall have to be a right to equal opportunity in employment. With respect to the recruitment of 1997, one of the candidates therein filed W.P.(C) No.29410 of 2019 disposed of by this Court on 22nd November, 2024 and it was dismissed on the ground of delay and limitation.
With so much of developments having taken place ever since the order in OJC No.15454 of 1997, this Court is constrained to hold that there should be an end to it. The petitioners in the hope of employment desperately kept the litigation alive but there is no escape from the conclusion that in the matters of employment, rules of recruitment are to be followed keeping in view the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. One cannot demand a localized preference in employment claiming to be a resident where any such industries are set up and employment therein is open to everyone, locals and non-locals and herein, it is found that residents of Bolangir District, who are validly registered under the Employment Exchanges in the district, were considered for the posts advertised and such registration is never found not to be invalid and therefore, despite recommendation of the Collector, Bolangir, it could not be acted upon by opposite party Nos.3 to 5 simply for the reason that the registration to be genuine. This Court do have every sympathy for the petitioners, who have become over-aged and followed the litigation with a hope against hope but in the case of employment what is more important is about compliances as per the terms and conditions of requirements. Since, it has been reiterated quite often that the State has no right to make any law restricting the appointment on the ground of residency only as it amounts to discrimination and is also prohibited under law.
In the case at hand, opposite party No.5 initially submitted a requisition to the District Employment Exchange Officer, Bolangir to fill up the posts of DBW with a qualification of ITI but after protest by the locals, such requirement was modified and it was requested to send the names of the candidates, who have passed Matriculation with experience certificate on explosive works or connected with establishments having explosive license belonging to the district of Bolangir. Such is the relaxation allowed and it was considering the demand of the locals and with such modification, the requisition was re-submitted to the District Employment Officer, Bolangir and accordingly, the names were sponsored and thereafter, the subsequent events followed. This Court, having gone through the reports and all such materials on record is left with no option except to hold that inquiry to the possible extent has taken place to ascertain and confirm to the allegations of the petitioners and in view of the registration of the alleged candidates in the Employment Exchanges of the district found to be genuine duly intimated by the District Employment Exchange, the entire exercise should be brought to a grinding halt vis-avis the cause of action commenced pursuant to the order of this Court in O.J.C. No.15454 of 1997.
Accordingly, it is ordered.
In view of the conclusion as above, the writ petition stands disposed of without any further directions issued.
The interim order stands vacated as a result.