The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 7610 of 2025 An application under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Priyanka Pradhan ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, [Additional Government Advocate] ___________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 15th of July, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner in the present writ application calls in question the correctness of final merit list dated 31.12.2024 whereby, the present Opposite Party No.5 was appointed as Asha Karmi of Village Bomakei on the Page 1 of 10 ground that her selection is contrary to the guidelines prescribed by the competent authority. 2. The petitioner’s case is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Superintendent, CHC Bomakei on 19.10.2024, inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Asha Karmi, the petitioner submitted her application. The Opposite Party No.5 was also one of the applicants. The candidates underwent a selection process. A notice was issued on 17.12.2024 enclosing the proposed merit list and inviting objections wherein, the petitioner was placed at Sl No.2 with 58.62% marks while Opposite Party No.5 was at Sl No.1 with 59.40% of marks. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 23.12.2024 addressed to the Superintendent, CHC Bomakei, stating that the award of marks to the candidates, particularly the Opposite Party No.5 was erroneous and contrary to the guidelines inasmuch as she was given weightage for both +2 as well as +3 qualification which was contrary to the guidelines. By letter dated Page 2 of 10 30.12.2024, the Superintendent, CHC informed that the guidelines had been properly followed and that after giving weightage Opposite Party No.5 was found to have secured more marks and therefore, was found suitable. The final merit list was published on 31.12.2024. 4. According to the petitioner, the guidelines provide that the additional benefit of marks is to be added to the base mark but there is no provision for giving such weightage multiple times. In the instant case, the Opposite Party No.5 was given additional benefit of 5% marks for +2 qualification and again 10% marks for +3 qualification. Had the guidelines been correctly interpreted and applied then, the petitioner having secured 55.83% marks in class-X and further with +2 qualification was entitled to 5% marks additionally to the base marks, which was given to her making her total marks 58.62%. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.5 secured 51.66% marks in class-X with +3 qualification. As such, she is entitled to 10% extra marks which would have taken her total tally to 56.82% marks but the authorities added 5% for +2 and 10% for +3 Page 3 of 10 thereby granting 15% weightage which is entirely contrary to the guidelines. On such grounds, the petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer:- “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule-Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus and any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued by quashing the final merit list dated 31.12.2024 under Annexure-6 with a direction for engagement of petitioner as Asha karmi for village Bomakei. And if the Opposite Party or any one of them fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule may be made absolute. And the Hon’ble Court may also pass any other appropriate order/orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of your kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 5. The State has not filed any counter which was dispensed with, in view of its stand being brought on record by the petitioner through the RTI Act. The Opposite Party No.5, despite valid service of notice chose not to appear. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Anindya Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surya Narayan Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 7. Referring to the guidelines issued by the Mission Directorate, National Health Mission, Odisha on Page 4 of 10 04.05.2004 for selection of Asha Karmi in rural and urban areas, Mr. Mishra would argue that the percentage of marks secured in class-X is the base mark to which additional percentage of marks are to be added basing on the category of the applicant. The petitioner admittedly secured 55.83% marks in class-X and had also passed +2. She was therefore, entitled to weightage of 5% of marks secured in the class-X, which comes to 2.79%. Thus, the total marks secured by the petitioner is 55.83% + 2.79% which equals to 58.62%. The Opposite Party No.5 however, secured 51.66% marks in class-X and also had +3 qualification, which entitles her to 10% marks as weightage. Thus, 5.16% marks are to be added to her base marks i.e., class-X and as such she would have secured 51.66% + 5.16% marks taking her total tally to 56.82% marks. The authorities however, gave her additional marks also for +2 qualification which is not at all contemplated in the guidelines. According to Mr. Mishra, the method of selection and the final merit list published thereby are unsustainable in the eye of law. Page 5 of 10 8. Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate has argued that there is no dispute that the petitioner secured more marks than Opposite Party No.5 in the class-X examination but the latter is a more qualified candidate having passed the +3 examination. Mr. Patnaik however, fairly submits that there is no provision in the guidelines allowing multiple grant of weightage marks. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and ongoing through the materials on record, this Court observes that the only point for determination in the case is, whether the guidelines were correctly followed in the selection of Asha Karmi in question. Reference to the guidelines dated 04.05.2022 reveals that the following is mentioned under the heading preparation of provisional merit list:- Based on the documents submitted by the applicant a provisional merit list of the shortlisted applicants will be prepared and the same will be displayed in different public places for inviting objection on the provisional merit list. Percentage of marks secured in Class-X/ Class-VII examination/ Skill test will be the base and basis of drawing the provisional merit list of the applicants. In addition to the percentage of marks secured in Class- X/Class-VIIexamination/ preferential additional percentage of marks(weightage of marks) will Test, Skill Page 6 of 10 be added to her base marks based on the category of the applicant. Hence, total marks secured by each applicant will be calculated considering the category of the applicant and corresponding weightage as mentioned in the Table below. (Table: Norms for availing preferential weightage marks) the Category Weightage of Marks Scheduled Tribe/ Schedule Caste Widow/ Divorced Higher Educational Qualification 10% of the percentage of marks secured in Class-X/ Class-VII/ Skill test. 10% of the percentage of marks secured in Class-VII/ Class-X/ Skill Test. of of in Intermediate-5% percentage the marks secured Class-X. Graduate-10% of the percentage of marks secured in Class-X. Post Graduate-15% of of percentage the marks in secured Class-X. The provisional merit list will be prepared based on the marks secured by the applicants in the order of highest to lowest in the prescribed format and signed by the members of selection committee. (Anex-4: Format for preparation of provisional/ final merit list of the shortlisted applicants). In case of two or more applicants securing the same highest marks (in the merit list), the older applicant (in terms of age) will top the provisional merit list. The same Page 7 of 10 norm will be followed for deciding other positions in the provisional merit list. In case of any objection on the provisional merit list by any applicant, objection will be considered within 10 days from the date of publication of provisional merit list. Objection will not be entertained after the due date. 10. From the above table it is clear that the weightage of 5% for Intermediate (+2), 10% for Graduate (+3) and 15% for Post Graduate qualification, as the case may be, is to be added to the base mark i.e., the marks secured in class-X. This is obviously intended to acknowledge candidates with higher qualification to decide the inter-se suitability. But then, the grant of additional marks (weightage) for higher qualification is to be given once and not for every higher qualification. For instance, a person with Post Graduate qualification will have the benefit of an additional 15% of marks. It does not mean that he will also have the benefit of 5% additional marks for his intermediate qualification and 10% for graduate qualification. This would be an absurd proposition as such a candidate would end up being benefitted by as much as 30% additional marks. On the same analogy, if a candidate is a graduate, he or she would be entitled to Page 8 of 10 10% additional marks, plain and simple. It does not and cannot mean that having also passed +2 examination he would get 5% extra marks. It is always the final qualification which is relevant for awarding the additional percentage of marks. 11. Coming to the facts of the present case, as has already been narrated hereinbefore, the petitioner secured 55.83% marks in class-X and also had +2 qualifications. This makes her entitled to additional marks of 5% of 55.83%, in all amounting to 58.62%. The Opposite Party No.5 secured 51.66% marks in class-X and had graduate qualification, which entitles her to 10% extra marks. Thus, adding 5.16% to 51.66%, her total tally comes to 56.82% which means, even if she had higher qualification yet, her total marks has to be treated as being less than that of the petitioner. As already stated, the award of weightage to the Opposite Party No.5 both for +2 as well as +3 qualification is contrary to the guidelines and cannot therefore, be sustained. Page 9 of 10 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, it is held that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference by this Court. The writ application is allowed. The impugned final merit list dated 31.12.2024 is hereby quashed. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to issue order of engagement in favour of the petitioner by treating her as the selected candidate. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 15th of July, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 16-Jul-2025 12:18:56 Page 10 of 10