Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. AFR Deepak Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6765 of 2018 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. AFR Deepak Kumar Nayak …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. Sachidananda Sahoo & P.R. Bhuyan, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate M/s. A.K. Maharana, Balaram Panda, K. Beura & B.K. Mahalik, Advocates (O.P. Nos.5, 8, 9, 12 & 13) _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 4th March, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer. “The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue rule NISI to the opposite parties to show cause as to : (i) Why the provisional merit list for the post of Sikshya Sahayak, 2016-17 for category; SEBC, Post: Category-II- Arts of Nabarangpur District Page 1 of 14 under Annexure-14 and its’ approval as final merit list and any consequential action thereon shall not be declared as bad and illegal; AND (ii) Why the opposite parties shall not be directed to draw the final merit list afresh list vide the provisional merit ignoring Annexure-14 in respect of category: SEBC, Post: Category II-Arts of Nabarangpur District strictly in accordance with guidelines vide annexure-2, by incorporating the name of Petitioner within stipulated period; AND And if the Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, then rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions and any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper may be passed. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. Bereft of unnecessary facts, the case of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 26.12.2016, the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Government in School and Mass Education Department informed the State Project Director, OPEPA regarding the decision of the Government to engage 14087 numbers of Sikshya Sahayaks during the year 2016-17 as also the guidelines for selection. The petitioner applied against Category-2 Teacher in Arts with his social category being SEBC. He opted for Nabarangpur district as his
Legal Reasoning
first preference. In the data sheet for engagement of Sikshya Page 2 of 14 Sahayaks hosted in the OPEPA website, the petitioner’s name was reflected at serial No.315 with total marks at 189.4254. Pursuant to notification issued by the District Project Coordinator(DPC), Nabarangpur on 18.01.2018, the petitioner appeared along with his original documents for verification, which was done. An eligible list of candidates, whose certificates were verified, was published. However, in the provisional merit list published in respect of Nabarangpur district, the name of the petitioner did not appear. On 09.03.2018, objections were invited against the said list by the State Project Director, OPEPA. The petitioner submitted a representation on 13.03.2018 before the DPC, Nabarangpur specifically stating that applicants securing less marks than him had been included in the provisional list. Again, on 21.03.2018, a provisional list was published but the name of the petitioner was not included. On the contrary, persons, who had not opted Nabrangpur as their first preference district, were included in the list belonging to different categories. In so far as SEBC is concerned, out of 10 vacancies, 3 were reserved for women and 7 for men. 3 women candidates were enlisted at Page 3 of 14 serial No. 1, 2 & 3. Serial Nos.4 and 5 were SEBC (Sports Persons Men) category. Serial No.6 was SEBC (PH) category and serial Nos. 7 to 9, despite not opting Nabarangpur as their first preference district, were included as PH(VI), PH(OH) and PH(HI) respectively. Furthermore, a candidate at serial No. 10, despite opting for Nabarangpur as 5th preference district, was also enlisted. The petitioner, despite securing more marks was not enlisted. It is his further case that had the list of SEBC Men opting Nabarangpur as first preference district been prepared, his position would have been at serial No.4. Moreover, PH candidates were adjusted in the category of SEBC illegally. On 28.03.2018, final merit list was published. 3. The stand of the State opposite parties is that the petitioner had applied under +3 Arts B.Ed by opting Nabarangpur as his first preference district. He was placed in the eligible list with total percentage of 189.4254 marks. A meeting was conducted at the Government level on 15.03.2018 consisting of Deputy Director, Secondary Education; Deputy Director, Elementary Education; Special Secretary to Government, S & ME Department; Deputy Secretary to Page 4 of 14 Government, SC & ST Development Department; Deputy Director (Admn.) OPEPA; and Sr. Technical Director, NIC, Bhubaneswar, wherein certain decisions were taken. As per the said decision, the post and category wise provisional merit list of candidates in respect of Nabarangpur district was published. The petitioner having availed age relaxation of five years under SEBC category could have been considered only for that category. As regards the candidates under SEBC category as per the merit list, it is stated that candidates at serial Nos. 4 & 5 had availed sports person quota and placed under SEBC category; serial Nos. 6 to 10 had availed PH quota and were placed in SEBC category to satisfy the PH reservation quota. It is further stated that such adjustment was made in line with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (in short “2016 Act”), which came into force from 19.04.2017 providing for 4% reservation for persons with disability. Further, 14087 posts advertised include some unfilled vacancies of 2014-15. Two posts under sports +3 Arts B.Ed. category remained unfilled during 2014-15, which were filled up during 2016-17. Out of 124 posts meant for category-2 Arts Page 5 of 14 for Nabrangpur District, 10 were reserved for SEBC category, out of which 3 were reserved for women, 5 for PH candidates and 2 for sports persons. A merit list was prepared accordingly. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S.N. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. Be it noted that though the private opposite parties (opposite party Nos. 5 to 13) were represented by counsel, yet there was no appearance from their side during hearing, despite grant of repeated opportunities. 5. Mr. Sahoo would argue that the opposite party authorities have not followed the dictum of Supreme Court while preparing the merit list and have wrongly applied the principle of horizontal reservation. As per the law laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others1 and Saurav Yadav and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2 (2021) 4 SCC 452, the authorities ought to have prepared the list by applying vertical reservation on merit and thereafter applied horizontal reservation according to appropriate social category. According