An application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. --------------- Bimal Kumar v. Block Development Officer
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17456 of 2015 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. --------------- Bimal Kumar Samal …… Petitioner - Versus - Block Development Officer, ..…. Jeypore & another Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : M/s. J.R. Dash, K.L. Dash S.C. Samal & N. Sahoo, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. N Patnaik [Addl. Government Advocate] Mr. D.R. Bhokta & N. Afreen, Advocates ___________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 19.12.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The Petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer:- “Under the above the petitioner humbly prays that, the Hon’ble Court would be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice of Rule NISI, calling upon the opposite parties to show circumstances, Page 1 of 10 cause as to why Annexure-8 shall not be quashed and the appointment of the petitioner, in the said post of “Jogan Sahayak” in Tankua Grampanchayat, jeypore shall not be granted and upon their showing no cause/insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute; And appropriate any order/orders as this Hon’ble court feels just and proper, for the ends of justice. other pass And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound every pray.” 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.03.2015 published by the BDO, Jeypore inviting applications for engagement of Jogana Sahayak in twenty two Gram Panchayats, the Petitioner submitted his application along with all relevant documents for Tankua Gram Panchayat. In the status report of the candidates, it was revealed that there were three applicants including the Petitioner for Tankua Gram Panchayat. The Petitioner having secured 56% marks was the most meritorious among the three candidates. However, the Opposite Party No.2, who had secured only 41.60% marks was selected. The Petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that he is a resident of another
Legal Reasoning
district. It is contended by the Petitioner that his father, who originally belongs to the Jajpur district was an employee of the erstwhile Odisha State Electricity Board at Jeypore for Page 2 of 10 which he had migrated from his native district to the district of Koraput about 40 years back and settled there permanently. The Petitioner was born at Jeypore on 26.12.1983. He was educated at all levels at Jeypore. The Petitioner’s father acquired a Government lease-hold plot under Tankua Gram Panchayat. The Petitioner is also a voter of the area and participates in elections at all levels. On such facts, it is contended that the rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner by treating him a resident of other district is entirely bad in law. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the BDO (Opposite Party No.1), who, while admitting all the averments made in the writ petition, stated that the advertisement dated 25.03.2015, stipulated that the candidate must be permanent resident of the Gram Panchayat for which he is an applicant. Though the Petitioner was issued with a residential certificate by the Tahasildar, Jeypore on 16.07.2013, the same carries an endorsement that he is a native of Jajpur district and the family ordinarily resides at village Jagannathpur in the district of Koraput. Therefore, he was not selected as he Page 3 of 10 does not fulfill the requirement indicated in the advertisement. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the selected candidate (Opposite Party No.2). It is stated that he was selected after undergoing a due selection procedure and having been appointed vide order dated 19.05.2015, has been continuing as such. It is further stated that the Petitioner being a native of the district of Jajpur, his candidature was rightly not considered and therefore there is no illegality in the selection of the private Opposite Party. 5. Heard Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. 6. Mr. Dash would argue that as per the advertisement, a candidate is required to be a permanent resident of the Gram Panchayat for which he has applied. The Petitioner is a resident of Jagannathpur village, which comes under Tankua Gram Panchayat. A resident certificate showing his residence as such was issued by the Tahasildar, Jeypore on 16.07.2013. Only because there is Page 4 of 10 an endorsement that he is a native of the district of Jajpur does not mean that he is not to be treated as a permanent resident of Jagannathpur in Koraput district. Mr. Dash relies upon judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Pratima Mohapatra v. Sub- Collector, Balasore and others, reported in 2024 (II) OLR 457 to submit that the Petitioner being a resident of Jagannathpur village since 1984, is to be treated as a permanent resident. He being a native of Jajpur is inconsequential. Mr. Dash concludes his argument by submitting that the Petitioner being the most meritorious among the three candidates ought to have been selected. 7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned AGA would argue that it is not disputed that the Petitioner secured the highest marks and also that he is a resident of Jagannathpur village, which comes under Tankua Gram Panchayat. However, the advertisement requires that the candidate must be permanent resident of the said Gram Panchayat. Since the Petitioner admittedly is a native of Jajpur district, he cannot be treated as permanent resident of Koraput Page 5 of 10 district, even though he may have been residing there temporarily. 8. Mr. D.R. Bhokta, while adopting the arguments of the State Counsel additionally submits that the Petitioner not having fulfilled the eligibility criteria was rightly not selected whereas his client was selected after undergoing a due selection procedure. Moreover, his client has been discharging his duties since 2015 without any blemish. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhokta, the engagement of his client should not be interfered with. 9. From the rival contentions, it is evident that the facts of the case are not disputed. The only question that falls for consideration is the implication of the endorsement made in the resident certificate of the petitioner that he is a ‘native of Jajpur district’. As already stated, said certificate appears to have been issued in favour of the Petitioner on 16.07.2013, which is long before the publication of the advertisement. The certificate was issued as per Rule (3) of the then prevailing Rules, i.e., Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 (for short, the Rules, 1984). Further the certificate was issued in the statutory Form (III). The Page 6 of 10 Form (III) appended to the rules requires the Revenue Officer to certify the nativity as well as residence of the applicant. As such, the nativity of the Petitioner has been mentioned as Jajpur district, while his residence has been mentioned as Jagannathpur in Koraput district. 10. There is a difference between ‘nativity’ and ‘residence’ of a person. The word ‘native’ has not been defined in the Rules. As per Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) ‘native’ means: “1. A person who is a citizen of a particular place, region, or nation by virtue of having been there. 2. A person whose national origin derives from having been born within a particular place. 3. Loosely, a person born abroad whose parents are citizens of the nation and are not permanently residing abroad. 4. Loosely, a person or thing belonging to a group indigenous to a particular place. The term Native American is sometimes short-ened to native.” 11. The Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary (New 9th Edition) defines ‘native’ as follows:- “1. [only before noun] connected with the place where you were born and lived for the first years of your life: your native land/country/city. It is a long time since he has visited his native Chile. Her native language is Ko-rean. SEE ALSO NATIVE SPEAKER. 2 [ONLY BEFORE NOUN] connected with the place where you have always lived or have lived for a long time: native Berliners. 3. [only before noun] (sometimes offensive) connected with the people who originally lived in a country before other people, especially white people, came there: native peoples native art. 4 (to…) (of animals and plants) existing Page 7 of 10 naturally in a place indigenous: the native plants of America. The tiger is native to India. native species 5. [only before noun] that you have naturally without having to learned it innate: native cunning” A reading of these definitions would imply that ‘nativity’ refers to the place to which a person originally belongs. 12. The word ‘resident’ has also not been defined in the rules. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘resident’ as follows:- “1. a person who lives in a particular place or who has their home there: a resident of the United States. There were confrontations between local residents and the police. 2. (formal) a person who is staying in a hotel. The hotel restaurant is open to non-residents. 3. a doctor working in a hospital in the US who is receiving special advanced training.” 13. Thus, while ‘nativity’ of a person refers to the place to which he originally belongs, ‘residence’ is the place where he resides for the time being. As already stated, the resident certificate mentions that he is a resident of Jagannathpur since 1984. A person may be a native of any place but may be residing at a different place. It does not and cannot imply that he has to be treated as a permanent resident of the place of his nativity for all times to come. So even if the Petitioner was a native of Jajpur district, he is a Page 8 of 10 resident of Koraput district since 1984, which is nearly 19 years prior to publication of the advertisement. In the case of Pratima Mohapatra (supra), the coordinate Bench relying on the judgments of this Court passed in the case of Sarojini Sahu v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in 2014 (II) OLR 65 and Anuradha Das v. Sub-Collector, Puri in Writ Appeal No.374 of 2013 held that a person ordinarily residing in a place for more than six months can be treated as a permanent resident of that place. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench as above and also holds that the Petitioner having been a resident of Koraput district since his birth, has to be treated as a permanent resident of the said district regardless of the fact that he is a native of Jajpur district. It must be kept in mind that the requirement as per the advertisement is permanent residence of the candidate and not his nativity. 14. From the foregoing discussion, it becomes evident that rejection of candidature by treating him a ‘resident’ of another district (Jajpur) is entirely erroneous and contrary to the settled position of law. It reflects the fallacy of the Page 9 of 10 concerned authorities to treat ‘nativity’ and ‘permanent residence’ as synonymous, which as discussed before, are not. Said action of the authorities cannot therefore, be sustained. This Court is, for such reason inclined to interfere in the matter. 15. For the foregoing reason therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of engagement dated 19.05.2015, in so far as the same relates to the Opposite Party No.2 is hereby quashed, The Opposite Parties-authorities are directed to issue order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner as Jogana Sahayak of Tankua Gram Panchayat within four weeks from today. Since the Opposite Party No.2 has been discharging his duties for nearly a decade, the authorities may engage him in any available vacancy in the district. The Petitioner’s appointment shall notionally relate back to the date on which the Opposite Party No.2 was appointed, though he shall not be entitled to any financial benefits. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 11:24:20 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 19th December, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Page 10 of 10