The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16314 of 2022 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Sabyasachi Mohanty Petitioner Mr. Subhadutta Routray, Advocate . -versus- State of Orissa and Anr. . Opp. Parties Mr.M. R. Mohanty, A.G.A. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Adv. For O.P. No. 2. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing :12.11.2024 | Date of Judgment : 07.03.2025 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the action of Opp. Party No. 2 in not awarding marks in lieu of the continuous service rendered by the petitioner as contractual employee under the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Khurda as MIS- cum- Planning Coordinator in terms of the Rule 8 of Odisha Group C & Group D Posts (contractual Page 1 of 27 appointment) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2013 Rules‟), and not awarding marks to the petitioner in respect of Question No. 2(e) of the Practical Test conducted by the Opp. Party No. 2. FACTS PLEADED BY THE PETITIONER 2. The factual background leading up to filing of present writ application as pleaded by the petitioner, in nutshell is that, the petitioner was working as contractual employee under the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Khurda as MIS- cum- Planning Coordinator. Pursuant to an Advertisement No. 2650, dated 20.05.2015 published by Opp. Party no. 2- Odisha Staff Selection Commission, (hereinafter referred to as „the Commission‟), regarding selection of the candidate for recruitment to the post of Junior Data Entry Operator on contractual basis of the State Secretariat under Home Department, Government of Odisha. Under the Clause 11(a) & (b) of the advertisement, it is stated that the contractual employees belonging to category I & category II who have completed atleast one year of continuous service will be awarded 1% extra marks on the total marks of the examination for each completed years of continuous service subject to a maximum of 15% which shall be Page 2 of 27 added to the marks secured by the candidate while deciding the merit position. As the petitioner has rendered two years and eight months under the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Khurda as MIS- cum- Planning Coordinator, which is admittedly a Group- C post on contractual basis, from 01.09.2012 to 01.05.2015, he is entitled for additional 2.8% marks in terms of the Clause 11(a) & (b) of the said advertisement However, while publishing the merit list, the experience acquired by the petitioner as a contractual employee has been ignored by the Opp Party No.2 in violation of the conditions laid down in the advertisement. 3. The Opp. Party No.2- Commission vide its Corrigendum Notice No.636, dated 03.02.2017 has deleted viva voce test under Clause 10 of the advertisement which was 20 marks and the same was substituted with Test on Computer Fundamental (Theory)- 40 marks and Test on Computer (Practical)- 40 marks i.e. total 80 marks. Furthermore, Clause 14 provides that the merit list will be prepared taking into account the sum total of marks secured by the candidate in computer fundamental theory and practical and bonus mark (in case of in- service contractual employees as per Page 3 of 27 Clause- 11(b) of the advertisement) taken together in order of merit. 4. Pursuant to the said corrigendum dated 03.02.2017, the written test was held on 17.04.2016 and after such written test, computer examination- both theory and practical, was held on 28.12.2019. After such test, the petitioner was called upon for document verification on 06.03.2020. Eventually, on 01.07.2021, the Opp. Party No. 1 published the final merit list of the selected candidates for the post of Junior Data Entry Operators wherein the name of the petitioner did not find place and moreover, out of 232 advertised vacancy, total 185 candidates were selected. 5. The petitioner made a RTI application on 21.02.2022 before the PIO of the Opp. Party No.2 Commission and on 08.04.2022 PIO of the Opp. Party No. 2 furnished the requisite information to the petitioner wherein under Point No. 2 the marks secured in the written examination of the petitioner is indicated as 25 and the marks secured in the computer skill is 35 marks i.e. total 60 marks has been secured by the petitioner in the recruitment test. From the perusal of the information sheet provided by the PIO, the mark secured by the last selected candidate under the UR (male) category is 62. Page 4 of 27 6. The petitioner again made a RTI application on 08.04.2022 asking the entire Question paper of the Computer Practical Test and the answer sheet of the petitioner for the said test. The PIO of the Commission on 28.06.2022 supplied the information. On perusal of the information supplied by the PIO in the question paper, Question no. 2(e) was- “Insert header „Exam 2019‟ and footer „OSSC‟ in the above MS- Word File” and the said question was for 2 marks. On perusal of the answer sheet of the petitioner, it appears that the Opp No. 2 has not awarded 2 marks as the petitioner has answered Question- 2(e) correctly and the same has remained unevaluated by the Opp. Party No. 2. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was an in- service candidate and continuing as MIS cum Planning Coordinator under the School and Mass Education for a period of 2.8 years. In terms of the „2013 Rules‟ along with Clause 11 of the advertisement, the petitioner should have been awarded additional 2.8 marks and in case, the said marks for being an in- service candidate will be added to the total marks secured by the petitioner, the total will come to 62.8 marks which is more than the last selected candidate who has secured 62 marks. Page 5 of 27 8. It was further pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that, Rule- 3 of the 2013 Rules states about the applicability of the Rules upon the employees appointed on contractual basis. Under the Rule- 4 of the 2013 Rules, two categories of the contractual employees has been described- one being the Category-I i.e. contractual appointments made with prior concurrence of the Finance Department and Category- II, i.e., contractual engagement made through the manpower service provider. According to the petitioner, he falls under the category- I which can be verified from the certificate issued from the former employer of the petitioner. Therefore, it is pleaded by the petitioner that non- consideration of his case for grace marks in lieu of his previous tenure as contractual government employee under Rule- 8(b) of the 2013 Rules, which states for additional grace marks for each completed years of continuous service subject to a maximum of fifteen percent read along with Clause- 11 of the advertisement, is not only illegal but also is discriminative and not permissible in the eye of law. Reply BY OPP. PARTY 1 & 2 9. In the counter affidavit filed by Opp Party No. 1 &2 on 25.08.2022, it has been pleaded that the petitioner has prayed for Page 6 of 27 awarding grace marks on the total marks secured by him for each completed years of continuous service in terms of the Rules- 8(b) of the 2013 Rules. Learned counsel for the opposite parties referred to Rule-3(4) of the 2013 Rules, which reads as follows; “These rules shall not apply to contractual appointment made under (a) Temporary plan scheme (including those under centrally sponsored plan scheme, externally aided projects) (b) Temporary Establishments (c) Tenure based posts Provided that person appointed on contractual basis under these schemes prior to the commencement of these rules, who are below 45 years shall be allowed to participate in the recruitment process under rule 5 for any Group- C or Group- D posts, if they satisfy all other eligibility criteria for such post as laid down in the relevant recruitment rules and shall be allowed relaxation of upper age limit for entry into Government Service.” 10. The counter affidavit further reveals that, the persons appointed under sub- rule- 2 and proviso to sub- rule-4 shall get the benefit of these rules only after they were recruited and appointed to any post under rule-5. The petitioner has been appointed as MIS- cum- Planning Page 7 of 27 Coordinator under District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhijan, Khorda, which is a centrally sponsored plan scheme. As the petitioner has been appointed under SSA scheme, which is a centrally sponsored scheme, no weightage mark has been awarded as per Clause- 11 of the advertisement. The petitioner has not been selected for the post as he has secured 60 marks and the last candidate selected of his category has secured 62 marks. 11. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded in the counter affidavit that, the petitioner has raised objection on the ground that Opp. Party no. 3 has not awarded marks in respect of question no. 2(e) of the Computer Skill Test. But on verification of his Computer Skill Test answer paper it was found that the petitioner has not answered question no. 2(e) of the Computer Skill Test. Hence, no mark has been awarded. REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER 12. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit on 15.01.2023, in reply to the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party no. 1 and 2 wherein it has been stated that the Opp. Party no. 1 and 2 are trying to justify their arbitrary action in not awarding 1% extra mark on the total marks of the examination for each completed year of service as has been contained in Rule 8(b) of the 2013 Rules. It was reiterated by the petitioner that Rule-3 of the 2013 Rules states about applicability of Page 8 of 27 the Rules upon the employees appointed on contractual basis and in Rule- 4 two categories of the contractual employees have been described, one being the Category- I i.e., contractual appointments made with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department, and Category- II i.e., contractual engagement made through the manpower service provider. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he falls under Category- I, which can be verified from the certificate issued by the former employer of the petitioner and therefore, non- consideration of the case of the petitioner for awarding grace marks in lieu of his past experience as contractual government employee is illegal and arbitrary.
Legal Reasoning
13. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the petitioner has been appointed as MIS- cum- Planning Coordinator under District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhijan, Khorda, which is a centrally sponsored plan scheme. As the petitioner has been appointed under SSA scheme, which is a centrally sponsored scheme, no weightage mark could be awarded as per Clause- 11 of the advertisement. In this regard, it was submitted by the petitioner in the rejoinder reply that, School and Mass Education Department in the year 2011 issued an advertisement for different posts wherein the petitioner applied for the post of MIS cum Planning Coordinator Page 9 of 27 against the substantive posts which has also got concurrence from the Finance Department and wherein the recruitment procedure under The Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe) Act, 1975 has also been followed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appointing authority of the petitioner i.e., District Project Coordinator issued him certificate for claiming benefits under the 2013 Rules. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Opp. Party no. 1 & 2 are trying to justify their action by restricting the benefit of the 2013 Rules only for the candidates who are the Data Entry Operators/ Computer Personnels engaged in the departments of the Secretariat either on contractual basis or on outsourcing basis (without following due procedure), which is clearly impermissible. In order to give weightage for the past services rendered by a person working on contractual basis and to fructify such years, the government/executive decided to promulgated the 2013 Rules and by no means any functionary of the government can curtail the ambit and scope of the 2013 Rules. Further, it was pleaded that the Opp. parties cannot create a class among class by restricting the benefit of the 2013 Rules only to the Data Entry Operator or Computer Personnel engaged Page 10 of 27 in the departments of the Secretariat. Such action of the Opp. Parties is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 15. Mr. Routray, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner emphatically submitted that the petitioner has answered Question No. 2(e) which was for 2 marks, but the answer was never evaluated by the Opp. Party No. 1 & 2. He further submitted that if Opp. Party No. 1& 2 would have corrected the answer script of the petitioner with due diligence, the petitioner would not have been deprived of getting appointment as the petitioner would have easily secured more marks than the marks secured by the last candidate selected for appointment. REPLY OF THE OPP PARTY NO.2 16. The Opp. Party no. 2 subsequently filed their reply on 5.12.2023, to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. It was clarified in such reply that, the question no. 2 consists of five bit questions- a,b,c,d and e, which needs to be individually answered. But the petitioner has answered the questions as a whole in one place. In question no. 2(b), the petitioner sets the whole date in the font size 22 which does not fulfill the requirement of the question. In question no. 2(c), a new row in between Row 1 and Row 2 is to be inserted, but this part has not been reflected in the answer. The petitioner has sorted the table date in descending order instead of ascending order with reference to age Page 11 of 27 which is a clear mistake while answering the question 2(d). Lastly, the petitioner had answered the question 2(e) and has been awarded with the deserving full marks. It was further clarified in such reply that a mistake has been committed while filing the previous counter affidavit about the marks awarded in respect of question 2(e), but such mistake was committed being confused with the single answer of different sub- question under the heading 2(a). After a query was made, an evaluator from the panel of evaluator was consulted along with a scheme of evaluation. From which it was clear that the petitioner has been correctly awarded with the marks as against question no. 2 and has been awarded with 2 marks against question no. 2(e). The Opp. parties in such reply affidavit begged unconditional apology while filing such counter affidavit and stated that it was purely unintentional. It was further submitted that, the petitioner has been awarded 6 marks out of full marks of 10 marks in question no.2. REJOINDER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY BY THE OP NO.2 17. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his reply on 14.01.2024, to the reply filed by Opp. Party no. 2. It was pleaded by the petitioner that, Opp. Party no. 2 has filed such reply affidavit on 05.12.2023 deviation from the earlier stand taken by them in the previous counter affidavit Page 12 of 27 filed by them on 25.08.2022. In the previous affidavit it was submitted by the opposite parties that the petitioner has not answered question no. 2(e), where as in the subsequent reply it was submitted that the petitioner has in fact answered question no. 2(e) and he has been awarded 2 marks for the same. In the subsequent reply, Opp. Party no.2 has taken a new stand that the petitioner has been awarded 6 marks out of 10 in respect of question no. 2 as he has answered the entire question in one table. 18. The stand of the petitioner in this regard is that the question paper of Computer Practical Test, in the note to paragraph- 3 granted liberty to the candidates for making suitable assumption wherever required. Accordingly, in reply to question no. 2(a), the petitioner created the table in M.S. Word by inserting the required rows and columns by incorporating the given name and data and thereafter, in respect of question no. 2(b) the petitioner even though was required to set the font size 22 and font style italic and accordingly, the petitioner has made the font size as per the question and font style italic of the entire table as in the question no minimum font size or style was indicated so far as other rows are concerned. 19. Thereafter, under question no. 2(c) it was asked to insert a new row in between row- 1 and row- 2 by inserting the credentials given in Page 13 of 27 the question paper which the petitioner has done so. In question no. 2(d), the candidates were asked to modify the tables in ascending order with respect to their age in which the present petitioner committed the mistake by sorting the table in descending order. But nowhere in the given question no. 2 it was mentioned that in order to insert a new row or to sort the table in ascending order you have to create a new table as the entire question set under question no. 2 has been following a flow, starting from creating the table, thereafter setting the font size and style, thereafter inserting a new row and finally setting the table data in ascending order. It was further stated by the petitioner that the Opp. Party no.2 in order to justify their illegal action are saddling the entire responsibility on the petitioner stating that he has not created a new table in respect of question no. (c) and (d) which the question no. 2 never asked for. 20. In the course of hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that, he has not been awarded proper marks against his answer to question no.1. It was further contended, referring to the question paper submitted, that the petitioner has not been awarded marks in respect of question no. 2(c). It was also contended that in view of question no. 2(b), the answer to question no. 2(c) is to be given in a modified format. It was submitted by him that the Page 14 of 27 petitioner has not been given correct marks and the petitioner is entitled to get eight marks as he has answered four questions correctly out of five questions in question no.2. 21. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party no.2, on the other hand contended that the petitioner has been awarded the marks correctly in question no.2 and he is entitled to 6 marks out of 10 marks. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 22. In the given factual background and upon consideration of the
Decision
pleadings made in the writ petition, counter affidavits and subsequent reply affidavits made by both the parties and after hearing submissions made by the learned counsels on behalf of the respective sides; the court finds that the issue for consideration in the present case is two- fold- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the extra weightage marks in lieu of the continuous service rendered by him as contractual employee under the District Project Coordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Khurda as MIS- cum- Planning Coordinator in terms of the Rule 8 of Odisha Group C & Group D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 r/w Clause 11 of the advertisement? Page 15 of 27 2. Whether the Opp. Parties have failed to correctly evaluate the answer of the petitioner to the question No.2 of the Computer practical test? POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN EACH ISSUE 21. The first issue is to be adjudicated keeping in view- a) The pleading made by the opposite party that the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of extra marks as provided under Clause 11 of the advertisement and rule 8 of the 2013 rules, as he was appointed as a contractual employee in the centrally sponsored scheme as per Rule-3(4) of the 2013 Rules. 22. The second issue is to be adjudicated by going through- a) the answer script of Computer Skill Test submitted by the opp. Party no. 2, complying with the order of this court vide order no.10 dated 29.01.2024. COURT’S ANALYSIS 23. Keeping in view the pleadings of the respective parties and the issue with regard to evaluation of the answer script, that has been specifically raised and emphatically argued, this Court, at this stage would like to attempt to answer the second issue first. In order to consider the second issue, this Court is required to first examine the answer script which has been filed along with the writ application under Annexure-7. A scrutiny of aforesaid document reveals that the Petitioner has attempted Question No.2 and he has been awarded 6 Page 16 of 27 marks out of the total 10 marks that is assigned to Question No.2. On a close scrutiny of the answer script of the Petitioner, this Court observes that the Petitioner‟s answer to the Question No.2 has not been properly evaluated. Further, in order to compare the marks awarded to other candidates who have answered Question No.2, this Court vide order dated 29.01.2024 had asked the Opposite Party-Odisha Staff Selection Commission to produce some of the answer scripts of some of the candidates who had appeared along with the present Petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, answer scripts were produced before this Court in a sealed cover. After opening the sealed cover, this Court verified the answer scripts of some of the candidates, who had appeared in the said examination and who have attempted Question No.2 and have been awarded marks therein. On perusal of such answer scripts, it is observed that in respect of Question No.2 some of the candidates, whose code numbers have been given below, have secured the following marks indicated against their respective code number:- Sl. No. Code No. 1 2 3 6201 5760 5719 Marks Awarded 10 10 10 Page 17 of 27 4 5 6191 6141 10 10 On verification of the answer scripts of such candidates whose marks have been indicted hereinabove, this Court observes that the Petitioner has also given a similar answer in a tabular form. Although such candidates have been awarded full marks, however, the Petitioner has been awarded a total of 6 marks, so far the Question No.2 is concerned. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner‟s answer to the Question No.2 has not been properly evaluated and that the Petitioner is entitled to more marks in respect of his answer to Question No.2 keeping in view the marks awarded to similarly placed candidates who had appeared along with the Petitioner in the very same recruitment test. Therefore, the answer to the second issue.2 is bound to be decided in favour of the present Petitioner. 24. The next question that falls for consideration is issue No.1 as has been indicated hereinabove. The Petitioner is claiming an extra 2.8 marks in lieu of his continuous service as a contractual employee under the District Project Co-ordinator, Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Khurda as MIS-cum-Planning Co-ordinator in terms of Rule-8 of Odisha Group- Page 18 of 27 C & Group-D posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 coupled with Clause-11 of the advertisement. The advertisement dated 20.05.2015, pursuant to which the recruitment process was conducted, has been filed along with the writ application as Annexure-1. Clause- 11 of the said advertisement lays down a special provision. Since the said provision is a relevant for a just adjudication of the issue involved in the present writ application, the same is extracted herein below:- “11. Special Provision: The Data Entry Operator/Computer personnel engaged in the Departments of Secretariat either on contractual basis without adopting the due procedure or on outsourcing basis shall be extended relaxation in upper age limit and allowed extra mark, if they appear at the recruitment on production of certificate of engagement from the respective Administrative Department as per the provision contained in G.A. Department notification No.32010/Gen dtd. 12.11.2013. (a) The contractual employees belonging to Category-I and the persons provided by the manpower service provider agencies under Category-II, who shall be less than 45 years of age and shall have completed at least one year of continuous service, in case they apply for Recruitment under sub-rule (1) of rule 5 for any Page 19 of 27 Group -C and Group-D posts, shall be allowed relaxation of upper age limit for entry into Government service; provided they satisfy all other eligibility criteria for the post as laid down in the relevant recruitment rules. (b) They shall be allowed one percent extra marks on the total marks of the examination for each completed year of continuous service subject to a maximum of fifteen percent, which shall be added to the marks secured by them for deciding the merit position. Such marks will be awarded on the total marks after the viva-voce Test.” 25. In view of Clause-11 of the advertisement under Annexure-1, the Data Entry Operator/Computer personnel engaged in the Departments of Secretariat, either on contractual basis without adopting due procedure or on outsourcing basis, shall be extended relaxation in upper age limit and they shall also be allowed extra marks in the event they appear in the recruitment exam, on production of certificate of engagement from the respective Administrative Department, in view of GA Department notification dated 12.11.2013. Furthermore, Clause-11(b) provides that they shall be allowed 1% extra marks on the total marks of the examination for each completed year of continuous service subject to a maximum of 15%. Such additional weightage mark shall be added to the total mark secured by Page 20 of 27 them for deciding the merit position. It has also been clarified that such marks shall be awarded on total marks after the viva-voce Test. 26. Mr. Routray, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner strenuously argued that although the Petitioner is entitled to the additional weightage mark as per the Clause-11 of the advertisement under Annexure-1. However, the authorities have illegally not awarded such mark to the Petitioner. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that had the extra weightage mark been awarded to the Petitioner in terms of Clause-11 of the advertisement, the Petitioner would have qualified in the recruitment exam. While substantiating the aforesaid ground, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner referred to Office Order dated 01.09.2012 under Annexure- 3. Vide Office Order dated 01.09.2012, the Petitioner was appointed by the District Project Co-ordinator, SSA, Khurda on contractual basis. Therefore, by the time the advertisement under Annexure-1 was published, the Petitioner had already acquired two years and eight months of experience. This fact has also been categorically mentioned in Petitioner‟s application form under Annexure-2, at Sl. No.12, under the heading “Work experience details”. Further, such appointment was made by following the due procedure of law by the Collector-cum- Chairman, SSA, Khurda. He also referred to the certificate under Page 21 of 27 Annexure-7 to the writ petition issued under the signature of the District Project Co-ordinator, SSA, Khurda, which was submitted before the OSSC by the Petitioner. The certificate so submitted by the Petitioner in the prescribed format for claiming benefits under the Contractual Appointment Rules, 2013 reveals that the Petitioner has been engaged in the office as MIS-cum-Planning Co-ordinator on contractual basis w.e.f. 01.09.2012. Such certificate further reveals that the Petitioner has been engaged against a contractual post which has been created with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their order UOR No.133-SS-1, dated 20.09.2011 without following the recruitment procedure including the ORV Act, 1975. 27. Since the facts reflected in the certificate issued by the District Project Co-ordinator, SSA, Khurda, which have been discussed in the previous paragraph, cannot be disputed by either side to the present writ application, this Court shall now proceed with the examination of the issue as to whether in view of the aforesaid factual position, the Petitioner is entitled to the additional weightage mark as has been provided under Annexure-11 of the advertisement under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Clause-11(b) of the advertisement clearly stipulates that the employees mentioned in Clause-11 of the advertisement shall be entitled to 1% extra mark on the total marks of the examination for Page 22 of 27 each completed year of continuous service subject to a maximum of 15%. Therefore, if the provision of Clause-11(b) is applied to the facts of the present case, the Petitioner would get 2% extra marks on the total marks of the examination, i.e. 2% of 100 marks, which equals to 2 marks, and as such the total marks of the Petitioner would be 62 marks. In such eventuality, the Petitioner would be eligible to get the appointment considering the fact that the last candidate in the UR Category who has been appointed had secured 62 marks which is equal to the marks that the Petitioner would hypothetically secure if the additional weightage marks (2 marks) are awarded to the Petitioner as discussed hereinabove, especially considering the fact that there are vacant posts available against which the Petitioner can be given appointment. 28. So far, the eligibility of the Petitioner to get such additional marks is concerned, this Court is required to examine the eligibility criteria as prescribed in Clause-11 of the advertisement. In the first portion of Clause-11, it has been prescribed that Data Entry Operator/Computer personnel engaged in the Department of the Secretariat either on contractual basis without adopting due procedure or on outsource basis shall be extended with the benefit of extra marks as provided in Clause-11(b), provided, they appear in the recruitment Page 23 of 27 test and produce a certificate of engagement from the respective administrative department. Similarly, Clause-11(a) includes contractual employees falling under Category-I & II, who are less than 45 years of age and have completed at least one year of continuous service, in case they apply for recruitment under Sub-Rule-1 of Rule-5 for any Group-C and Group-D posts, they shall be allowed relaxation of upper age limit. Therefore, both the categories of employees, i.e. those who have been engaged on contractual basis by different departments of the Secretariat as well as contractual employees under the 2013, Rules are eligible to get age relaxation as well as the additional weightage mark. 29. Moreover, this Court observes that there is no distinction between contractual employees who have been engaged by different departments of the Secretariat and the contractual employees who have been engaged by the District Administration, particularly by the Collector and District Project Co-ordinator, SSA of different districts. In either case, the employees have been engaged on contractual basis by the employer which is the Government of Odisha. May be they are required to perform different nature of work, however, on the basis of such work assigned to them, they cannot be treated differently. Further, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Page 24 of 27 Opposite Parties that the Petitioners are not eligible to get such relaxation under Clause-11 of the advertisement on the ground that they were engaged on contractual basis in project mode appears to not be based on any sound logic. Two different sets of contractual employees engaged by the government at two different places cannot be treated differently, otherwise such conduct would amount to discrimination. Moreover, such conduct of creating a group within the government employees on the basis of the nature of work that they are performing, without any justification or sound reason, would be termed as discriminatory and arbitrary and as such, the same would be hit by the principle enshrined in Article-14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties have indeed committed an illegality by treating the present Petitioner differently to those employees who were engaged on contractual basis by the various departments of the Secretariat and such conduct of the Opposite Parties would definitely cause discrimination to the Petitioner, and as such, the same would be unsustainable in view of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. 30. The avowed objective behind Article-14 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all persons are treated equally. Similarly, Article-16 of the Constitution of India lays down the fundamental Page 25 of 27 principle of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Testing the conduct of the Opposite Parties against the touchstone of Articles-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, this Court observes that such conduct of the Opposite Parties would not pass the test of equal treatment of the citizens in the matter of public employment. In the present case, the principles laid down in Articles-14 & 16 would squarely apply, inasmuch as the Petitioner, who was engaged on contractual basis by the government at the district level, has been discriminated against while extending such benefits to other employees who were engaged on contractual basis by the government in different departments of the Secretariat. Moreover, such discrimination by the government has no discernable nexus with any particular object to be achieved, so that the same can be saved from being hit by the provisions of Articles-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 31. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual background of the present writ application as well as the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties have committed an illegality by not awarding the extra marks to the Petitioner as has been provided under Clause-11(b) of the advertisement under Annexure-1. Resultantly, while allowing the writ application, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to reassess the Page 26 of 27 case of the Petitioner and to award the extra marks to which the Petitioner is entitled to on the basis of his experience certificates and on such basis the total marks obtained by the Petitioner be recalculated and accordingly the case of the Petitioner be considered for appointment to the post pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure- 1. Since, one post has been kept reserved by virtue of an interim order passed earlier in the present writ application, it is needless to direct that the case of the Petitioner shall be considered for appointment against the said post, in the event the Petitioner is found eligible, after awarding the extra marks to the Petitioner as has been directed hereinabove. 32. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 7th March, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Mar-2025 10:54:11 Page 27 of 27