LILIMA SINGH vs Doordarshan on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The background of the case is that pursuant to her application against the advertisement dated 15.12.1993 issued RAVI KUMAR

by the respondents inviting applications for filling up of the post of Technicians from amongst the unreserved candidate through open competitive examination, the applicant appeared at the selection and was empanelled in the merit list, at Sl. No. 14, published by the Respondents, however, she was not appointed. Subsequently, out of 6 appointed candidates to the post of Technicians, 3 candidates resigned from the post in 1996 on the basis of the complaints made in regard to securing job by producing false/fake certificates. Since, applicant’s case was not considered even after the resignation of three recruited candidates, she, along with two other similarly situated successful candidates [Ms. Pravat Nalini Tripathy and Ms. Kalpana Das], approached this Bench in O.A. No. 151 of 1997 and this Bench vide order dated 10.02.2004 disposed of the OA with the following observations: “In the aforesaid circumstances, the panel cannot be treated to have outlived its utility. However, in the face of the formal submissions made by the Respondents that two posts have been abolished w.e.f. 05-11-1999 and two posts have been separated from Doordarshan, Bhubaneswar, we are not sure, whether there is any vacancy in the cadre of Technician for operating the panel. We, therefore, leave this matter to the departmental authorities to act upon the panel prepared RAVI KUMAR

by them and consider the grievance of the Applicants for giving them appointment strictly in accordance with the position shown in the select/merit list. Until final decision is taken in the matter, Applicants shall be allowed to continue, as it is, as Casual employees".

2. Since Ms. Tripathy and Ms. Das were approved for appointment vide letter dated 29.05.2006 but no such order was issued in favour of the present applicant, she filed OA No. 87/2007 before this Bench seeking direction to appoint her in any existing vacancy. This Bench vide order dated 21.09.2010 by observing that the panel is active until the next panel is drawn, directed the respondents to consider/reconsider the case of the applicant. Against this order, respondents approached the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 15703/2011, which was dismissed on 01.08.2019 with observation that “since no direction has been issued by the tribunal on the merit of the case of the applicant, no case is made out to interfere in this Writ Petition”. Thereafter, respondents passed speaking order dated 08.03.2020 [A/4] rejecting the case of the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying to quash RAVI KUMAR

annexure-A/4 and to direct the respondents to appoint her in the post of Technician forthwith.

3. The point of argument of Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that after the order dated 10.02.2004 of this Bench in OA 151/1997, respondents are now estopped from refusing appointment to the applicant. It is submitted after the order of this Bench other two candidates had already been appointed but although the applicant is on the same footing, she has been discriminated. With regard to merit list where five candidates are above the applicant, it is stated that since they have never raised their contention to get appointment to the post, in question, the applicant has fair, reasonable and legitimate right to be appointed. It is also contended that there are availability of vacancies in Technician post in the department where the applicant can be accommodated.

4. Contesting the case of the applicant, respondents have filed counter inter alia stating that, vide Advertisement dated 15.12.1997, applications were invited to fill up 3 posts of Technician from amongst unreserved candidates and, RAVI KUMAR

accordingly, panel of 21 candidates was drawn. While the panel was in operation, 3 more posts of Technicians were vacant. Accordingly, 6 candidates in order of merit from the panel were appointed. After the resignation of 3 appointed candidates to the post of Technician, Ms. Tripathy and Ms. Das, who were at Sl. Nos. 7 and 8 in the merit list, were appointed against the existing vacancies pursuant to the order of this Bench dated 24.03.2005 in OA Nos. 234/2005 and 209/2006. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Orissa Vs Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777, Shankarshan Dash Vs UOI, (1991) 3 SCC 47, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that mere selection and inclusion in the select list do not confer a candidate right to be appointed. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this OA. Reiterating his stand point, applicant has filed rejoinder to the counter. Heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. Heard Counsel for both the parties and perused the records. RAVI KUMAR

6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to Advertisement dated 15.12.1993 issued by the respondents, selection was made against the posts of Technician from amongst the unreserved candidate and the applicant after selection process was empanelled at Sl. No. 14 of the merit list. It is also not in dispute that 6 candidates, according to their merit position, were appointed against the said posts but, after resignation of 3 candidates in 1996, applicant, along with two other similarly situated successful candidates [Ms. Pravat Nalini Tripathy and Ms. Kalpana Das], approached this Bench in O.A. No. 151 of 1997 and this Bench vide order dated 10.02.2004 disposed of the OA observing that the panel cannot be treated to have outlived its utility. However, recording the submissions made by the Respondents that two posts have been abolished w.e.f. 05.11.1999 and two posts have been separated from Doordarshan, Bhubaneswar, the Bench left the matter to the departmental authorities to act upon the panel prepared by them and consider the grievance of the applicants strictly in accordance with the position shown in the select/merit list. RAVI KUMAR

Subsequently, Ms. Tripathy and Ms. Das were approved for appointment vide letter dated 29.05.2006. Since, the applicant was left out, she filed OA No. 87/2007, which was disposed of by this Bench vide order dated 21.09.2010 observing that the panel is active until the next panel is drawn and directed the respondents to consider/reconsider the case of the applicant. Respondents challenged this order before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 15703/2011, which was dismissed on 01.08.2019 with observation that “since no direction has been issued by the tribunal on the merit of the case of the applicant, no case is made out to interfere in this Writ Petition”. Thereafter, respondents considered the case of the applicant and issued a detailed speaking order dated 08.03.2020 rejecting the case of the applicant. From the aforesaid speaking order, the selection was made strictly according to the merit position of the candidates. Even after the resignation of three candidates, the other two candidates, i.e. Ms. Tripathy and Ms. Das, were approved for appointment according to their merit position. It is also discernible that the position of the applicant in the said RAVI KUMAR

merit list is at Sl. No.14 and the applicant has not produced any document to show that despite her such position, she is legally eligible and entitled to be appointed. The only argument of the applicant is that since she had qualified in the selection process; was placed in the merit position; and kept agitating her grievance regularly, she is entitled to be appointed. However, from the speaking order dated 08.03.2020 issued by the respondents, we do not find any substance in the argument of the applicant that only making a place in the merit list, she is entitled for appointment even though she is well below in the merit list at Sl. No. 18 and the vacancy was only six. Also, there is no exclusive or conclusive order either of this Bench or the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa to appoint the applicant against any vacancy. The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Santanu Kumar Budhia Vs State of Odisha & Ors., W.P(C) No. 193030 of 2022, have held as under: “ In the light of above discussions and guided by the precedents narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the appearance of the name of a candidate in merit/select list does not confer any right to be selected and the unsuccessful candidates cannot claim that they have been given RAVI KUMAR

a hostile discrimination. Judicial review can be exercised only if any unconstitutionality or violation of statutory rules are established, and it cannot be exercised to undo a work done by a competent authority.”

7. In view of the facts and law discussed above, there being no merit in this OA, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of rejection. In the result, the OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending, MA, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pramod Kumar Das)

(Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.)

Member (Judl.)

RK/PS RAVI KUMAR