The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13020 of 2023 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Saisurya Mohanty . Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others . Opp. Parties Mr. A.P. Das, A.S.C. Mr. S.K. Panda, Adv. for O.P.-5 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 11.03.2024 | Date of Judgment: 11.03.2024 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. S.K. Panda, learned counsel for O.P. No.5. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice on the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why // 2 // appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued to quash the letter dtd.4.4.2023 under Annexure-3. and to direct the Opp.parties more especially Opposite Party No.3 to 5 to declare the petitioner eligible for scholarship and to award the same forthwith to secure ends of justice; And/or pass any other order/orders/ direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice;” 3.
Legal Reasoning
The factual background leading to filing of the present case, in a nut shell, is that the Petitioner who is a student of Saraswati Sishu Vidya Mandir, Niali, appears to be a good student in her class. For granting scholarship on merit the Class- III students an internal test was conducted by the above named school. In the said examination conducted by the school, the Petitioner stood first by securing 40 marks and three other candidates Karmajit Yasraj Bihari, Abhilipsa Sahu & Pratiti Sarangi have secured 23, 17.5, 15.5 marks respectively. Similarly, S.S. Ankita Swain (15 marks), Jiban Jyoti Behera (14.5 marks) marks, Swikruti Das (14.5 marks) who appeared in the test conducted by the School, were placed at Sl. No.5, 6 & 7 respectively. 4. The grievance of the present Petitioner is that although the name of the Petitioner was included in the final list published by the B.E.O., Niali under Annexure-1 to the writ application, wherein the name of the Petitioner was indicated at Sl. No.6 for // 3 // getting merit scholarship 2021-22 in respect of Class-III. However, subsequently the said list under Annexure-1 was tampered with and the same was revised. On 04.04.2023 the B.E.O., Niali published another list under Annexure-4 wherein although the names of Jiban Jyoti Behera, Swikruti Das have been included, the name of the present Petitioner has been excluded. The list under Annexure-4 further reveals that the names of two candidates who have secured 86 marks, have been included in the list at Sl. Nos.6 & 7 respectively. Finally, the names of 7 candidates have been recommended for getting scholarship in respect of Class-III of the year 2021-22. Being aggrieved by such exclusion of Petitioner’s name, the Petitioner, represented by her father, has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the resolution dated 19.07.2014 under Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.4, the Govt. of Odisha, School & Mass Education Dept. published the revised guidelines on Primary (Class-III stage) and Upper Primary (Class-V stage) Scholarship Schemes. The scheme under Annexure-A/4 to the counter of Opposite Party No.4 provides fir the requisite eligibility in order to appear in the Scholarship // 4 // Examination in Clause-C of the resolution. The eligibility as provided under the aforesaid resolution further provides that the student securing more than 60% marks in the last annual examination are eligible to appear in the said Scholarship Examination, Students of Government/ Government Aided/ Government Recognized Schools are eligible for the examination and maximum 04 (four) students from a School can appear. By referring to the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Party-Saraswati Sishu Vidya Mandir was supposed to send the name of four students on the basis of the test conducted by the school. He also referred to the result of such test conducted by the school from the affidavit filed by the School on 26.02.2024 under Annexure-A/5 to the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No.5-School which reveals the following order of merit:- Provincial Talent Examination -2021-22 Class-III Children’s Name Code Mark Secured Full Mark-50 Saisurya Mohanty Karmajeet Yashraj Bihari Abhilipsa Sahu Pratiti Sarangi A21 A11 A59 A01 40 23 17.5 15.5 S.S. Ankita Swain Jibanjyoti Behera Swikriti Das Debasish Sahu Debiprasanna Mohapatra Prangyajita Nayak Sthitiprangya Dutta // 5 // A64 A56 A63 A30 A73 A32 A39 15 14.5 14.5 14 13.5 13 13 In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that only four candidates were eligible from Opposite Party No.5-School to appear in the Scholarship Test 2021 i.e. the present Petitioner-Sai Surya Mohanty, Karmajit Yashraj Bihari, Abhilipsa Sahu, Pratiti Sarangi. The other two candidates Jiban Jyoti Behera, Swikriti Das whose names appeared in the final list, were not eligible to appear in the aforesaid scholarship examination conducted by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, he contended that due to lack of basic eligibility to write the scholarship examination at least two candidates namely, Jiban Jyoti Behera and Swirkiti Das at Sl. Nos.2 and 5 of the final revised merit list under Annexure-4 were not eligible to participate in the scholarship test. Two other candidates Soumyajit Mohapatra and Lambodhar Mallick who have secured 86 marks each, have secured less mark than the // 6 // Petitioner, who has secured 87 marks in the test conducted by the Opposite Parties. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that although the Petitioner is eligible for getting scholarship, however, she has been illegally and arbitrarily deprived of such benefit due to the errors committed by the Opposite Parties in preparing the final merit list. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5- School submitted that the Opposite Party No.5 has filed a counter affidavit. In such counter they have not disputed the fact that the Petitioner stood first in the test conducted by the school to recommend names of the students who will participate in the aforesaid scholarship test of Class-III students. He further contended that inadvertently the school recommended 7 students to participate in the scholarship examination as all of them were good students and secured more than 60% marks in the last annual examination as is required under the scheme. He further contended that the school is not at fault, as the authorities should have verified in the aforesaid fact and by retaining the four of candidates and they should not have considered the other three candidates as per the scheme. It was contended that pursuant to letter dated 27.03.2023 of the B.E.O., Niali, the school had // 7 // submitted a revised list of recommended the candidates to participate in the scholarship test on 29.03.2023. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4-B.E.O. submitted that upon getting a complaint from a student with regard to tampering of the marks, the entire selection process was reviewed and it was found that the marks awarded to one of the candidates had in fact been tampered. Therefore, on such verification the candidates whose marks were found to have been tampered with were rectified and, a revised merit list was published strictly in terms of the scheme. He further submitted that the scheme provides that maximum four students from each school are to be taken into consideration while giving scholarship to Class-III students. Accordingly, four students from Opposite Party No.5-School who have secured more marks in the test conducted by the Opposite Parties, have been given scholarship. Therefore, the name of the Petitioner has been eliminated as he has secured 87 marks. The other four candidates from the very same school have secured more marks than the Petitioner. In the aforesaid background, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in the matter. He further submitted that after receiving a // 8 // complaint, the Opposite Party No.3-B.E.O., Cuttack has called an inquiry on the alleged misconduct and accordingly a proceeding has been initiated against the Additional B.E.O. Finally, it was contended that the final merit does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of their submissions as well as pleadings of the parties, this Court observes that the Govt. of Odisha in the School & Mass Education Dept., prepared a scheme for grant of scholarship to lower primary and upper primary school students. So far lower primary i.e. up to Class-III is concerned, the same is governed by a scheme under Annexure- A/4 to the counter of Opposite Party No.4. The said scheme provides that each school has to sponsor four students to appear in the scholarship examination to be conducted by the B.E.O. So far Opposite Party No.5-School is concerned, it appears that they had sponsored seven candidates to appear in such test on the basis of a test conducted by the school itself. Further, the counter affidavit of the school reveals that the Petitioner stood first in the test conducted by the school and that they have also filed a copy of the comparative merit list of the school test which has also been quoted hereinabove. On the basis of such merit list prepared by // 9 // school, the name of the Petitioner stands at Sl. No.1 and other three candidates are placed at Sl. Nos.2 to 4. Two of the candidates who have been included in the final scholarship list namely, Jiban Jyoti Behera, Swikriti Das, have been placed at Sl. Nos.6 & 7 of the school merit list. 9. On a careful analysis of the scheme dated 19.07.2014 under Annexure-4 to the counter it appears that the basic eligibility criteria prescribes that a maximum four students from a school can appear in the test. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Saisurya Mohanty- Petitioner, Karmajit Yashraj Bihari, Abhilipsa Sahu, Pratiti Sarangi who were placed at Sl. Nos.1 to 4 respectively, are eligible to write the test as per the scheme under Annexure-A/4. The other two candidates Jiban Jyoti Behera and Swikriti Das who are allowed to participate in the test and have been included in the final list were basically not eligible to appear in such test. Moreover, candidates at Sl. Nos.6 and 7 of the final merit list such scholarship, have secured less mark than the Petitioner as admittedly the Petitioner has secured 87 marks and the candidates who were placed at Sl. Nos.6 & 7 have secured 86 marks. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the name of the present Petitioner should have been included in the final merit list and the Opposite Parties have // 10 // not followed proper procedure as has been prescribed in the scheme under Annexure-A/4 to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.4. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well as law applicable to the case of the Petitioner for determination of merit for grant of scholarship, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the Petitioner is eligible to appear in the test and accordingly on the basis of the mark secured by the Petitioner, her name should have been there in the final merit list. Considering the fact that the Petitioner and the students who have been included in the final merit list are young students and the mistakes have been committed by Opposite Parties in the preparing the final select list, this Court retrenches from passing any comment against any of the students. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to disturb the merit list which has been prepared and on the basis of which the scholarship has already been granted to the students under Annexure-4 to the writ application. However, since the Petitioner is eligible and she has been denied her legitimate claim, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to grant scholarship to the Petitioner as an exceptional case without disturbing the merit list under Annexure-4 to the writ application. While disposing of the present writ application, this Court would like to observe a word // 11 // of caution that this type of matter, the Dept. i.e. School & Mass Education Dept., Govt. of Odisha as well as the Officers involved in such exercise are required to be very cautious and sensitive since they are dealing with young children and their future. Further, it is directed that the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against Additional B.E.O. be taken to its logical conclusion. Considering that this order is being passed in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, such order shall not be treated as a precedent 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the direction given hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 11th of March, 2024/ Anil. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Mar-2024 16:55:53