In case of an appointment made under the Rules framed for the purpose of appointment, such appointment companyld number be cancelled either by the same authority or higher authorities in exercise of power of administrative exigency.
A companynter affidavit was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal.
It was stated in the companynter affidavit that an open advertisement was issued and in response to the same, the respondent herein and two other candidates, namely, Pitamber Majhi and Seshadeba had applied for the said post.
This, of companyrse, was done after taking into companysideration the representation of the respondent.
According to the appellants, both these candidates Pitamber Majhi and Seshadeba were wrongly rejected on wholly untenable grounds, therefore, the higher authority in the department had reviewed the case of the appointment of the respondent and opined that the appointment of the respondent to the said post was illegal and, companysequently, cancelled the same.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred a special leave petition before this Court.
The Division Bench also directed that the respondent be given an opportunity to resume his duties within 30 days from the date of its order.
The respondent, to his utter surprise and astonishment, on 2.1.1999 received a letter, wherein it was stated that the selection vis e vis the appointment of the respondent was reviewed and, thereafter, his appointment had been cancelled.
The respondent herein had applied for the said post.
8819 of 1999.
The High Court in the impugned judgment also stated that the civil rights had already accrued to the respondent who rendered one and a half years of service.
One Pitamber Majhi secured 348 marks in the matriculation examination as against 298 marks secured by the respondent.
In the process of selection, the respondent was selected and posted vide order dated 2.7.1998.
Brief facts of the case are as follows Respondent Bikash Kuanars father was working as an Extra Development Delivery Agent for short, EDDA in Narangochha B.O. and, on his superannuation a vacancy arose in the said post.
The respondent, aggrieved by the said order dated 2.1.1999, filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
Pursuant to the said order, the respondent joined the service.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Original Jurisdiction Case No.
