Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14144 of 2016 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Keshab Chandra Sethy …. Petitioner(s) Paradeep Port Trust &Anr. Opposite Party (s) -versus- Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr.Paresh Kumar Sahoo, Adv. Mr. S.D. Das, Sr. Adv. along with associates CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-04.10.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.12.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the issuance of the fresh advertisement by the Opposite Parties on 21.07.2016. He argues that the opposite parties’ decision to issue the new advertisement was both arbitrary and discriminatory, especially given that the reserved post remained unfilled. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows: Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 (i) The petitioner applied for the post of Attendant under the advertisement dated 23.02.2016 for the Visually Handicapped (VH) category reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. In his application, the petitioner submitted an old First-Aid certificate from an examination held on 21.10.2007. (ii) Pursuant to the advertisement, a letter dated 31.03.2016 was issued to the petitioner for document verification. Consequently, the verification process took place on 16.04.2016. During the verification, it was found that the First-Aid certificate submitted by the petitioner had become invalid, as it had not been renewed within the mandatory three-year period. This non-renewal rendered the petitioner ineligible for the post. (iii) This ineligibility was duly communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 13.05.2016. The petitioner was granted a period of 15 days from the date of the letter to submit a renewed First-Aid certificate. (iv) On 21.05.2016, the petitioner submitted the renewed First-Aid certificate. Following this submission, the matter was placed before the Screening Committee for review. (v) The Screening Committee, upon examining the renewed certificate, observed that it had been obtained after the date of the advertisement. This fact rendered the petitioner ineligible, as the eligibility criteria required the certificate to be valid as of the advertisement date. (vi) Despite having been given an opportunity to submit the updated certificate, the Committee rejected the petitioner’s candidature, citing the late submission of the renewed certificate. Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 (vii) In response to the petitioner’s non-selection, a fresh advertisement was issued on 21.07.2016 and published in the NijuktiKhabar on 30.07.2016, inviting new applications for the post of Attendant. (viii) Aggrieved by the issuance of the fresh advertisement, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. He contended that the action of the opposite parties in issuing the new advertisement was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly since the reserved post had remained unfilled. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioner submitted that the action of the opposite parties in issuing a fresh advertisement and failing to finalize his selection for the post of Attendant under the earlier advertisement constitutes a violation of the reservation policy, as no reservation was extended in favour of VH candidates in the fresh advertisement. (ii) He further submitted that he has complied with directions, submitting the updated First-Aid Certificate and Caste Certificate within the stipulated time. The opposite parties have acknowledged this compliance in their counter affidavit, making the non-selection of the petitioner unlawful. (iii) The petitioner contended that the opposite parties failed to properly communicate or provide any formal rejection of his candidature. In the absence of a rejection order or any communication of rejection, the Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 petitioner contends that he should not have been excluded from the selection process. (iv) The petitioner claimed that, based on his compliance with the requirements and the fact that the post of Attendant in the reserved category remains vacant, he is entitled to be appointed to the post. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The primary contention is that the petitioner was ineligible for the post as he failed to submit the renewed First-Aid certificate before or as of the date of the advertisement, which is a mandatory requirement as per the advertisement. (ii) It was further contended that the petitioner’s failure to submit the correct documents (renewed certificate) renders the petitioner’s application void. The opposite parties argued that the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to comply but submitted the certificate only after the deadline. (iii) The opposite parties refuted the petitioner’s claim of an interview and argue that the verification process only involved checking the petitioner’s educational and experience certificates, as stipulated in the letter dated 31.03.2016. (iv) It was argued that the issuance of the fresh advertisement is legally justified as per the guidelines set forth in the advertisement, considering the petitioner’s non-compliance with the necessary certification requirements. This action was in accordance with the rules and Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 regulations governing the recruitment process. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The crux of the dispute hinges on the rejection of the petitioner’s application, which was primarily based on his failure to submit the renewed First-Aid Certificate within the prescribed time. To ascertain the veracity of this claim and determine whether the petitioner’s non- compliance was indeed the cause of his disqualification, it becomes imperative for this Court to carefully examine the letter dated 13.05.2016, issued by the opposite parties. The relevant excerpt of this letter is produced below: “With reference to the advertisement dated 23.02.2016 and your application for the post, it is noticed that you have not produced the renewal updated First Aider Certificate from Govt. recognised Institute and updated Caste Certificate. Therefore, you are hereby advised to produce the same immediately within 15 days from the date of issue of this letter, for taking necessary action in the matter. If you don’t produce the same within 15 days, your candidature will not be considered and no further correspondence will be entertained.” 7. The letter in question unambiguously grants the petitioner a period of 15 days, commencing from 13.05.2016, to submit the requisite documents. True to his word, the petitioner complied with the stipulation and submitted the documents on 21.05.2016, within the allotted timeframe. And yet, in a turn of events that seems to defy Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 8. 9. reason, the Screening Committee rejected the petitioner’s application, citing a delay in submission of the required certificates. In these circumstances, it appears that the petitioner was not afforded the fair opportunity he was due. Rejected not for any fault of his own, but rather through a technicality that seems to have been imposed without proper regard for his compliance, the petitioner finds himself at the mercy of a decision that bears little relation to the spirit of justice. This case draws the attention of this Court to the case of Balam Singh Adhikari v. State of Uttarakhand&Ors.1The petitioner, with a 60% permanent hearing disability, was selected for the Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) post under the Persons with Disability quota. However, his appointment was cancelled because his disability certificate, although valid, was issued after the advertisement date, even though he met all qualifications and was duly selected. 10. The Uttarakhand High Court held that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was unwarranted, as he had submitted a valid medical certificate confirming his disability, and there was no dispute regarding the authenticity of his condition. The relevant excerpts are produced below: ‚The correct procedure for the appointing authority in these circumstances to have ascertained whether the petitioner actually has a physical disability or not and what was liable to be questioned were the certificate he has annexed and his physical disability itself under which he was getting a reservation. On the other hand, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on irregularities, which could 12017 SCC OnLineUtt 253. Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 have been corrected, considering that the applicant was a physically challenged person. This opportunity was liable to be given to the petitioner, which has not been done in the present case.” 11. Although the facts in this case differ from the precedent, especially as the petitioner was never given a fair opportunity for proper consideration, the principle underlying the earlier judgment remains crucial. The core issue, stripped of procedural formalities, is whether the petitioner truly suffers from the disability as claimed. This question of fact, whether the petitioner’s disability is genuine, should be the focal point of inquiry. All procedural irregularities, while important, should take a secondary role. The real and unassailable truth of the petitioner’s condition is what matters most, for it is this truth that determines his eligibility, not the technicalities that may have clouded the process. 12. The second, and perhaps most troubling aspect of this case, is the inexplicable disregard shown by the Screening Committee towards the letter dated 13.05.2016. What is most disconcerting is the failure of coordination and the administrative neglect on the part of the opposite parties, which directly led to the petitioner’s undue suffering. It is one thing for a process to falter due to technicalities, but it is another when the very system meant to serve and protect the rights of individuals instead becomes the source of their distress. 13. In this instance, the petitioner, who had adhered to the prescribed requirements, found himself caught in a web of bureaucratic blamegame and indifference. This lack of accountability, and the Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 25-Dec-2024 17:32:41 absence of due diligence, has resulted in an outcome that is as unjust as it is avoidable. CONCLUSION: In view of the foregoing observations, it is directed that the Opposite Parties reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for the reserved vacancy for the post of Attendant and take appropriate steps forward. Thus, in order to address the wrongs done to the petitioner and as a step towards rectifying the grievous harm caused, the opposite parties are hereby directed to compensate the petitioner for his plight. A sum of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be awarded to the petitioner as a form of redress, acknowledging the distress, frustration, and loss he has endured due to the failure of the administrative process to act justly. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the orders of this Court and ensure the disbursement of the compensation within three months from the date of this judgment. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. V. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the17th Dec., 2024/ Page 8 of 8