The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16810 of 2016 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Basudev Guru & Ors. …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.18225 of 2023 Sharada Prasan Sahoo & Ors. …. Petitioners -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA (Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4) Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A.K. Behera, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 5) Mr. N.C. Das, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 11) Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 14) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY // 2 // --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 02.02.2024 and Date of Judgment: 21.02.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. The writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 16810 of 2016 has been filed inter alia challenging the communication issued by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Odisha (in short “Council”) – Opp. Party No. 5 on 12.07.2016 under Annexure-6. Vide the said communication the Council pursuant to the request made by Opp. Party No. 4 clarified that a candidate, who has passed the +2 higher secondary course once and has pursued the second +2 higher secondary course fraudulently, the second course certificate is to be rejected. 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioners after completing their High School Certificate examination prosecuted +2 Arts under the Council and passed the same in the year 1996, 2000 and 2004 respectively. Subsequently, they acquired the +2 vocational course in the year 2013, 2011 & 2011 respectively under the Council vide Annexure-1 series, 2 series and 3 series respectively. 2.1. It is contended that all the Petitioners prior to their acquiring +2 vocational course, were continuing as Gomitra and in the provisional draft merit list of Gomitra published in the year 2013 under Annexure- Page 2 of 26 // 3 // 4, names of the present Petitioners were reflected at Sl. Nos. 11, 2 & 1
Legal Reasoning
respectively. It is contended that while so continuing as Gomitra with due enlistment of their names in the provisional draft merit list of Gomitra published under Annexure-4, advertisement was issued by Opp. Party No. 4 on 23.09.2013 and subsequently in the Daily Samaj on 24.07.2015 to fill up 46 nos. of posts of Live Stock Inspector. Out of those 46 posts so advertised, 50% of the vacancies were reserved for eligible Gomitras. 2.2. Even though Petitioners were placed at Sl. Nos. 11, 2 & 1 of the draft merit list of Gomitra under Annexure-4, but when they were not included in the draft select list issued by Opp. Party No. 4 for engagement of Live Stock Inspector on contractual basis on 01.08.2016, Petitioners when enquired about their omission in the select list for their appointment as Live Stock Inspector, they were intimated that since prior to acquiring the +2 vocational course, Petitioners have passed +2 Arts, they have not been included in the draft select list published by Opp. Party No. 4 on 01.08.2016 basing on the clarification issued by the Council vide letter No. 6284 dt.12.07.2016 under Annexure-6. Page 3 of 26 // 4 // 2.3. However, it is contended that prior to receipt of the impugned clarification from the Council on 12.07.2016 under Annexure-6, Govt.- Opp. Party No. 1 vide letter dtd.05.07.2016 under Annexure-5, had already observed that if +2 vocational certificate submitted by the candidates are genuine, they should be considered for selection to the post of Live Stock Inspector as per the recruitment rule. 2.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since Petitioners on the face of their acquiring the +2 Arts qualification in the year 1996, 2000 and 2004, were allowed by the Council to prosecute their 2 years +2 vocational course and were issued with the certificate having passed the examination in the year 2013 & 2011 respectively, the names of the Petitioners could not have been omitted in the draft select list published by Opp. Party No. 4 on 01.08.2016 basing on the clarification issued by the Council under Annexure-6. Since the Council on the face of their acquisition of +2 Arts qualification, allowed the Petitioners to prosecute +2 vocational course, which they completed successfully with issuance of the certificates under Annexure-1 series to 3 series, not only the Council erred in issuing the impugned clarification on 12.07.2016 under Annexure-6 but also Opp. Party No. 4 committed wrong in excluding the names of the Petitioners in the draft select list published by him on 01.08.2016 by not enlisting Page 4 of 26 // 5 // the Petitioners in the list of eligible Gomitras to get the benefit of appointment to the post of Live Stock Inspector as against 50% vacancies out of 46 posts so advertised. 2.5. It is also contended that the impugned clarification under Annexure-6 was issued basing on the decision taken by the Council in its proceeding dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-7. Since such a decision was taken by the Council much after the Petitioners were issued with the certificate showing their acquisition of +2 vocational course in the year 2013 and 2011 respectively, the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-7 and consequential clarification issued on 12.07.2016 under Annexure-6, have got no application to the entitlement of the Petitioners to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Live Stock Inspector as eligible Gomitras. 2.6. It is also contended that there was no bar earlier save and except the decision taken in the proceeding dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-7, wherein for the first time it was decided not to allow a candidate to prosecute +2 vocational course after acquisition of +2 qualification under the self same Council. Relevant extract of the decision taken by Page 5 of 26 // 6 // the Council in its proceeding dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-7 is reproduced hereunder:- “Resolved that the Committee after careful consideration and thread-bare discussion for 08 (Eight) nos. of cases referred to CHSE (O) in W.P.(C) No. 15319/2015 in its order dt.28.08.2015, the Certificates awarded to the candidates in Vocational stream be cancelled and withdrawn. Hence the first Certificate obtained from the Council be treated as genuine and the Certificate issued later in that all any stream be rejected/cancelled. Further resolved candidates seeking admission to any Higher Secondary course in any stream of the CHSE by depositing duplicate CLC/SLC shall furnish an affidavit that he/she has not obtained any Higher Secondary Degree before hand.” 2.7. Making all such submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that since because of the impugned clarification issued by the Council under Annexure-6, Petitioners were not included in the draft select list published by Opp. Party No. 4 for their appointment as against the post of Live Stock Inspector in terms of the selection process conducted by Opp. Party No. 4 pursuant to advertisement dtd.23.09.2013 and 24.07.2015, such a clarification is required to be set aside by this Court with a direction on the Opp. Parties to consider the Petitioners eligible to get the benefit of appointmnet as against the post of Live Stock Inspector as against 50% vacancies meant for Gomitras. 3. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Council placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No. 5, contended Page 6 of 26 // 7 // that all the Petitioners after passing their HSC examination, prosecuted their +2 Arts course under the Council and passed the +2 examination held in the year 1996, 2000 & 2004 respectively. But in order to get themselves admitted to the +2 vocational course, Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 approached the concerned school authority seeking issuance of duplicate School Leaving Certificate vide Annexure-A/14 to the counter so filed by Opp. Party No. 14 and by taking a plea that School leaving certificate so obtained by them have been destroyed due to white ants. After getting the duplicate SLC, Petitioner got themselves admitted to prosecute +2 vocational course and passed the same in the examination conducted by the Council in the year 2013 and 2011 respectively. 3.1. It is also contended by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Council that as provided under Regulation 123 of the Council’s Regulation, any registered student of the Council may be admitted to the Annual Examination in Vocational Course, if he/she has completed in any Higher Secondary School/Junior College, recognized by the Council as a Vocational Centre, a regular course in a Vocational subject for not less than two academic years after passing the High School Certificate Examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa or Page 7 of 26 // 8 // some other examination recognized by the Council as equivalent there to, and has been promoted to the second year class. Regulation 123 of the Council’s Regulation reads as follows:- “123. Any registered student of the Council may be admitted to the Annual Examination in Vocational Course, if he/she has completed in any Higher Secondary School/Junior College, recognized by the Council is a Vocational Centre a regular course in a Vocational subject for not less than two academic years after passing the High School Certificate Examination of the Board of Secondary, Orissa or some other examination recognized by the Council as equivalent there to, and has been promoted to the second year class.” 3.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid regulation learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Council contended that a candidate will be entitled to admit himself/herself to prosecute vocational course only after passing the High School Certificate Examination so conducted by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. Petitioners after passing of their High School Certificate Examination, prosecuted +2 Arts course under the Council by utilizing the School Leaving Certificate issued by the concerned school for that purpose. But by committing fraud on the Council as well as on the School, they obtained the duplicate SLC from the concerned school, for the purpose of being admitted and to prosecute the +2 vocational course. Since Petitioners in order to get the benefit of admission to +2 vocational course, committed fraud on the Council and on the School and got themselves admitted by taking a Page 8 of 26 // 9 // false plea that they have lost the original SLC because of white ants and after obtaining such duplicate SLC, they got themselves admitted to prosecute the +2 vocational course, Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of the qualification of +2 vocational course. 3.3. It is also contended that much prior to the decision taken by the Council in its proceeding dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-7 and consequential letter issued by the Council on 12.07.2016 under Annexure-6, the regulation was very clear that a candidate only after passing his High School Certificate examination can prosecute +2 vocational course and not after acquiring +2 qualification of any other nature from the self same Council. Learned Sr. Counsel contended that since by committing fraud on the School as well as on the Council Petitioners acquired the +2 vocational course, they are not eligible and entitled to get any benefit of such acquisition of +2 vocational course. It is contended that since admittedly Petitioners have committed fraud to prosecute +2 vocational course, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar (2022 SCC OnLine SC 486), Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get any relief as prayed Page 9 of 26 // 10 // for. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 6 of the Judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu has held as follows:- “6. The facts of the ne present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended unfair advantage of to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non- production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B -15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” 3.4. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of IOCL in Para 29 has held as follows:- Page 10 of 26 // 11 // “29. In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged mark sheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is Immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.” 4. Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Private Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 11 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter so filed by Opp. Party No. 6. Mr. Das contended that since Petitioners after passing their HSC examination took admission to prosecute +2 Arts, which they passed successfully in the year 1996, 2000 & 2004 respectively, they could not have taken admission to prosecute the +2 vocational course. It is contended that in terms of the decision taken by the Committee in its proceeding dtd.20.11.2015 vide Resolution No. 2947, it was resolved that all candidates seeking admission to any Higher Secondary Course in any stream of the Council by depositing duplicate CLC/SLC shall submit an affidavit that he/she has not obtained any Higher Secondary Degree Page 11 of 26 // 12 // before hand. Petitioners by suppressing the said fact got themselves admitted to prosecute +2 vocational course. Since Petitioners by using their original SLC prosecuted their +2 Arts course and by utilizing the duplicate SLC so obtained by them by taking a false stand before the School that they have lost their original SLC as those have been destroyed by white ants, they should have filed an affidavit that they have not obtained any higher secondary degree beforehand. 4.1. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Regulation 123 so relied on by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 5, Mr. Das contended that since Petitioners have acquired +2 vocational course by not disclosing about their previous qualification of +2 Arts so obtained by them from the Council, Council rightly issued the clarification under Annexure-6, basing on the decision taken in the proceeding under Annexure-7 and the provisions contained under Regulation 123. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Council in issuing the clarification in question. 4.2. It is also contended that some of the Private Opp. Parties challenging the placement of the Petitioners in the provisional draft merit list of Gomitra so published in the year 2013 and 2015 under Page 12 of 26 // 13 // Annexure-4 also approached this Court in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016. The present Petitioners also were Party to the writ petition in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016. It is contended that the prayer made in the present writ petition when was allowed by this Court vide its order dtd.18.12.2018, Opp. Party No. 4 published the select list by including the names of the present Petitioners and similarly situated candidates in the merit list for their appointment as against the post of Live Stock Inspector to the extent of 50% of the vacancy meant for Gomitras. But the order passed on 18.12.2018 was set aside vide order dtd.13.12.2021 in Writ Appeal No. 115 of 2019. After the order passed on 18.12.2018 was set aside in Writ Appeal No. 115 of 2019, Opp. Party No. 4 herein while appearing before this Court on 19.04.2023, submitted that a fresh merit list of eligible candidates will be prepared for appointment of Live Stock Inspector on contractual basis. The order passed by this Court on 19.04.2023 in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016 is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.04.2023, Dr. Bira Kishore Parida, CDVO, Jagatsinghpur is present before this Court. He fairly contended that the earlier merit list was published basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16810 of 2016. Since in the meantime the order passed on 18.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 16810 of 2016 has been set aside by this Court vide order dtd.13.12.2021 in Writ Appeal No. 115 of 2019, a fresh merit list will be prepared and it will be published within a period of four (4) weeks from today. Page 13 of 26 // 14 // 3. List this matter on 15.05.2023. Fresh merit list be published before the next date. 4. Personal appearance of O.P. No. 3 is dispensed with. 5. Let a copy of the writ petition be served on Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, who has entered appearance for the Council of Higher Secondary Education in course of the day.” 4.3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.04.2023, a fresh merit list was prepared by Opp. Party No. 4 in its proceeding dt.09.05.2023 of Gomitras as well as Non-Gomitra vocational applicants for the post of contractual Live Stock Inspector of the year 2013 & 2015. Basing on the fresh merit list so published in its proceeding dt.09.05.2023 in respect of Gomitra & Non-Gomitra eligible candidates, for their appointment as contractual Live Stock Inspector, this Court vide order dtd.26.06.2023 disposed of W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016 inter alia directing Opp. Party No. 4 to take consequential action in the matter by providing appointment to the Petitioners in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016 as against the post of Live Stock Inspector on contractual basis. The order passed by this Court on 26.06.2023 is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.6, 7 and 14. 3. The present Writ Petition was initially filed by the Petitioners inter alia with the following prayer:- Page 14 of 26 // 15 // “ Under the above circumstances, this Hon’ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to issue notices to the respondents, calling upon them to show cause, as to why the Provisional Draft Merit List of Gomitra Applicants for the post of Contractual Livestock Inspectors in the year 2013 and 2015 published by the Respondent No.3 under Annexure-4 and 5 respectively to this original Application shall not be re-casted, if the Respondents fail to show cause or submit insufficient cause, this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to 4 to cause an enquiry in the allegation petition/objection filed by the applicants under Annexure-7 to this Original Application and take a decision in the said allegation made by the applicants by affording reasonable opportunities of being heard to the applicants along with the Respondent No.6 to 20 and thereafter final merit list be published, otherwise the applicant will be suffered irreparably. Further this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 to take drastic action against the applicants who have committed fraud/ forgery in the process of selection for recruitment for the post of Livestock Inspect in the District of Jagatsinghpur under Gomitra category in accordance with law”. 4. It is contended that even though pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.04.2023, a fresh merit list of non-Gomitra Vocational applicants for the post of Contractual Livestock Inspector was produced by the Chief District Veterinary Officer, Jagatsinghpur vide AnnexureB/3 to the affidavit filed on 10.05.2023 and in the said fresh merit list, the names of the present Petitioners have been included, but the Opposite Party No.3 is not issuing necessary order of appointment appointing the Petitioners as against the available vacancies. 5. In view of such position and taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that all the Petitioners have been included in the fresh merit list so published by the this Court while C.D.V.O., Jagatsinghpur vide Annexure-B/3, disposing the writ petition directs Opposite Party No.3 to take consequential action in the matter by providing appointment to the Petitioners as against the available vacancies. Such an exercise shall be undertaken by the Opposite Party No.3 within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of this order. Page 15 of 26 // 16 //
Decision
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.” 4.4. It is also contended that basing on the clarification issued by the Council on 12.07.2016 under Annexure-6, when the names of the present Petitioners were not reflected in the merit list of eligible Gomitras for their appointment as Live Stock Inspector on 01.08.2016, Petitioners herein challenged the same in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 2796 of 2016. But the said writ petition was disposed of as not pressed vide order dt.19.07.2023. Order dt.19.07.2023 so passed in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 2796 of 2016 is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Heard. 3. In course of hearing, Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the issue is now pending for final adjudication before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18225 of 2023. 4. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not want to press this writ petition. 5. In view of such submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of as not pressed.” 4.5. It is further contended that even though Petitioners herein were Opp. Parties in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016 and the matter was disposed of after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Parties on 26.06.2023, but the said Opp. Parties along with some other persons challenging the merit list so published by Opp. Party No. 4 in its Page 16 of 26 // 17 // proceeding dt.09.05.2023 approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18225 of 2023 inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the proceeding dtd.09.05.2013 under Annexure-6 and the consequential select list under Annexure-7 and further pleased to direct the Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4 to prepared a fresh merit list upon inclusion of the name of the Petitioners therein at appropriate places pursuant to the conditions of the advertisement/selection and if the petitioners found suitable be appointed as Live Stok Inspectors with all benefits within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper; And/or pass any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the fitness of the case. And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioners shall ever pray.” 4.6. It is contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dtd.21.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 18225 of 2023 though granted liberty to the authorities to proceed with the merit list prepared pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016, but directed not to fill up 6 posts of Live Stock Inspector till the next date. 4.7. It is contended that in view of the order passed on 21.06.2023 though Opp. Party No. 4 was permitted to proceed with the merit list and not to fill up 6 posts of Live Stock Inspector, but Opp. Party No. 4 on the face of such order passed on 21.06.2023, did not provide appointment to the eligible candidates, whose names were reflected in Page 17 of 26 // 18 // the merit list published on 09.05.2023 for both Gomitra and Non- Gomitra category candidates. 4.8. It is however contended that since Petitioners herein prior to their acquiring +2 vocational course had prosecuted +2 Arts under the Council, they are not eligible and entitled to prosecute +2 vocational course in view of the specific provisions contained under Regulation 123 of the Councils’ Regulation. It is also contended that by making false affidavits before the school authority that Petitioners have lost their original School Leaving Certificates because of white ants and by providing the duplicate SLC, they got themselves admitted to prosecute +2 vocational course, which they passed in the year 2013 & 2011 respectively. Since Petitioners by committing fraud on the School as well as on the Council managed to prosecute +2 vocational course, Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get any relief as prayed for in both the writ petitions as per the settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything. Not only that in view of the order passed on 19.07.2023 in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 2796 of 2016, the prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 18225 of 2023 is not entertainable. 5. Mr. B.B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 14 while relying on the submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel Page 18 of 26 // 19 // appearing for the Council, contended that Petitioners more particularly Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 prosecuted their +2 Arts under the Council by producing the original SLC so issued in their favour by the respective schools. But by taking a false stand that they have lost their original SLC because of white ants, they got the duplicate by making applications under Annexure-A/14 to the counter before the school authority. After obtaining such duplicate SLCs, Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 along with Petitioner No. 1 prosecuted their +2 vocational course under the Council. 5.1. As provided under the relevant recruitment rule i.e. Odisha Veterinary Technical Service, Group-C (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2013, 50% of the vacancies as against the post of Live Stock Inspector is required to be filled up from amongst the candidates, who have passed the +2 vocational course in Animal Husbandry/Diary/Poultry/Meat/Animal Production from the recognized Educational Institution/Board. Petitioners since have acquired the +2 vocational course by committing fraud on the School as well as on the Council, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Council while issuing the clarification under Annexure-6 basing on the proceeding of the meeting of the Council under Annexure-7. Page 19 of 26 // 20 // 5.2. Mr. Mohanty further contended that the present writ petition with its prayer when was allowed by this Court vide Judgment dtd.18.12.2018, the matter was challenged by some of the Private Opp. Parties in Writ Appeal No. 115 of 2019. Vide order dtd.13.12.2021 the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.12.2018 was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal. While remitting the matter, the Writ Appellate Court also directed for listing of the matter along with records of W.P.C.(OAC) No. 1587 of 2016 and W.P.C.(OAC) No. 2796 of 2016. It is contended that W.P.C.(OAC) No. 1587 of 2016 was filed by some other private Opp. Parties inter alia with the prayer to recast the provisional draft merit list of Gomitra published by Opp. Party No. 4 in the year 2013 & 2015, wherein the names of the present Petitioners were reflected at Sl. Nos.11, 2 & 1 respectively. 5.3. It is contended that in the provisional draft merit lit of Gomitra when the names of present Petitioners were reflected at Sl. Nos. 11, 2 & 1 respectively, objections were filed inter alia taking the stand that since Petitioners after acquiring their +2 Arts course, have prosecuted and passed the +2 vocational course, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Live Stock Inspector to the extent of 50% meant for Gomitras. Page 20 of 26 // 21 // 5.4. However, basing on the order passed by the learned Single Judge initially on 18.12.2018 Opp. Party No. 4 though had published a merit list of eligible Gomitras by including the names of the Petitioners, but pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.04.2023, a fresh merit list was published by Opp. Party No. 4 by deleting the names of the Petitioners from the said list in its proceeding dt.09.05.2023. This Court while disposing the writ petition vide order dtd.26.06.2023, directed Opp. Party No. 4 to act upon the merit list so published in the proceeding of Opp. Party No. 4 dt.09.05.2023. But challenging the merit list of Gomitra issued by the Opp. Party No. 4 on 09.05.2023, Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18225 of 2023. This Court while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order to the effect that the authorities may proceeding with the appointment in terms of the merit list so prepared on 09.05.2023, but 6 posts of Live Stock Inspector shall not be filled up till the next date. 5.5. It is contended that Petitioners in the present writ petition are Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 6 in the connected W.P.(C) No. 18225 of 2023. It is also contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 21.06.2023, the names of the Private Opp. Parties though have been reflected in the final merit list published by Opp. Party No. 4 on 09.05.2023, but they are not getting the benefit of appointment as Page 21 of 26 // 22 // against the post of Live Stock Inspector to the extent of 50% in terms of 2013 recruitment Rule. It is accordingly contended that the relief as claimed by the Petitioners in the present writ petition as well as in W.P.(C) No. 18225 of 2023 are not entertainable and both the writ petitions are liable for dismissal as the Petitioners have acquired +2 vocational course by submitting false hood before the school authority as well as the Council. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that basing on the clarification issued by the Council, Opp. Party No. 4 when prepared a fresh merit list on 01.08.2016, the same was challenged by the present Petitioners before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2796 of 2016 and the clarification issued by the Council on 12.07.2016 was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 16810 of 2016. Basing on the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2018, a fresh merit list was published by including the names of the present Petitioners. But after the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2018 was set aside vide order dtd.13.12.2021 in Writ Appeal No. 115 of 2019 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.04.2023 in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016, fresh merit list was published on 09.05.2023. However, in view of the interim order passed on Page 22 of 26 // 23 // 21.06.2023, Opp. Party No. 4 is not in a position to act on the said merit list by providing appointment to the eligible Gomitra candidates as against the post of Live Stock Inspector to the extent of 50% of the vacancy. 7. To the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Council as well as learned counsel appearing for the State and Private Opp. Parties, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that even though as per Regulation 123, a candidate is eligible to be admitted to prosecute +2 vocational course after passing the High School Certificate Examination, but under the Regulation there is no bar for such candidates to prosecute +2 vocational course after passing their +2 course under the self same Council. Since under the Regulation there is no bar for acquisition of such additional qualification of +2 vocational stream and Petitioners after being allowed by the Council have acquired such qualification, the same cannot be taken away basing on the decision taken by the Council in its proceeding under Annexure- 7 and the impugned clarification issued under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that Petitioners since possess the +2 vocational qualification, they are eligible to get the benefit of appointment as eligible Gomitras to the post of Live Stock Inspector. Page 23 of 26 // 24 // 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the names of the present Petitioners were included in the draft merit list of Gomitra so published in the year 2013 under Annexure-4. Challenging the inclusion of the names of the present Petitioners when objections were raised by the private Opp. Parties, Opp. Party No. 3 when sought for clarification from the University as well as from the Govt., Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide letter dtd.05.07.2016 though clarified that if +2 vocational certificate submitted by the candidate are genuine, they should be considered for the selection to the post of Live Stock Inspector as per the recruitment Rule, but the Council while issuing the clarification on 12.07.2016 under Annexure-6 clearly held that a candidate who has passed the 2nd +2 Higher Secondary Course fraudulently, the 2nd course certificate is to be rejected. 8.1. As found from the record and as admitted by the Petitioners, all the Petitioners after passing their High School Certificate Examination, prosecuted their +2 Arts course under the Council and passed the said examination successfully in the year 1996, 2000 and 2004 respectively vide Annexure-1 series, 2 series & 3 series. As found from the record, Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 by taking a false plea that they have lost their SLC certificate because of white ant, moved the concerned school Page 24 of 26 // 25 // authority vide Annexure-A/14 for issuance of duplicate SLCs. After obtaining such duplicate SLCs, they got themselves admitted to prosecute +2 vocational course and passed the same in the year 2013 and 2011 respectively. Since by taking a false stand before the school authority vide Annexure-A/14, Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 obtained duplicate SLCs and prosecuted their +2 vocational stream under the Council to which they are otherwise not eligible in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 123, benefit of such qualification is not to be extended. Not only that in view of the clear provision contained under Regulation 123, a candidate is only eligible to get himself admitted to prosecute +2 vocational course after passing his High School Certificate Examination. 8.2. Since Petitioners after passing their HSC Examination prosecuted +2 Arts course and passed the same under the Council, as per the considered view of this Court, qualification of +2 vocational course so acquired by the Petitioners in the year 2013 and 2011 respectively vide Annexure-1 to 3 series, cannot be used by them to get the benefit of appointment as Live Stock Inspector as eligible Gomitra candidate. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 to get themselves admitted to prosecute +2 vocational stream, have committed fraud on the School as well as on the Council. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Page 25 of 26 // 26 // Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu & Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as well as the provisions contained under Regulation 123, this Court is of the view that Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get any relief as fraud vitiates everything. This Court accordingly dismiss both the writ petitions and vacate the interim order dt.21.06.2023. While vacating the interim order, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 to comply with the direction issued by this Court on 26.06.2023 in W.P.C.(OA) No. 1587 of 2016 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Both the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 21st of February, 2024/Sneha (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Feb-2024 20:01:10 Page 26 of 26