Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Prakash Kumar Majhi v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18606 of 2023 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Prakash Kumar Majhi …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate. For Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S. N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 25thApril, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs; Page 1 of 8 i. ii. iii. To direct the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to publish the provisional merit list and after considering objection if any publish the final merit list for the post of GRS in Bhadrak district in response to Advertisement under Annexure- 1. To direct the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to appoint the petitioner as GRS in Bhadrak district. To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial and consequential benefits flowing from the appointment. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 23.12.2022 by the Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak inviting applications from candidates for contractual engagement as Gram Rojgar Sevak in Bhadrak district. Seventy two posts were notified out of which twelve were reserved for SC candidates including four for women. The petitioner was one of the applicants. In the list of applicants published in the website of the Bhadrak district office on 08.05.2023, his name found place at Sl. No.1482. As per clause 10 of the advertisement the provisional select list was to be prepared in the ratio of 1:3 based on merit and accordingly, the final merit list was to be published. However, no such provisional or final merit list was Page 2 of 8 prepared but some candidates received telephonic calls for verification of documents on 25.05.2023. The query made by the petitioner with regard to his candidature was not answered satisfactorily by the CDO-cum-EO, Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak. The petitioner claims to be coming within eight candidates of SC Category. On such facts, he has filed this writ application with the prayer quoted above. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 inter alia, stating that 4018 candidates had applied pursuant to the advertisement, out of whom 573 applications were rejected. A detailed combined provisional merit list was prepared wherein the name of the petitioner found place at Sl. No.172. The petitioner secured 74% marks in 10 +2 and he was placed at Sl. No.20 of the provisional merit list of SC Category. The candidates were called for the computer test in the ratio of 1:2. As such, 24 SC Category candidates were called. The claim of the petitioner that he comes within 8 vacancies made for SC Category Male is not correct. It is however, admitted that the final merit list was not uploaded in the official website. It is further stated that since the petitioner secured less percentage Page 3 of 8 of marks in 10 +2 his name does not find place in the final merit list of the selected candidates. 4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that as per clause 10 of the advertisement, the provisional list of selected candidates shall be prepared on the ratio of 1:3 based on merit as per vacancies. From the provisional/final merit list, it is seen that there is serious discrepancy with regard to total marks in +2 examination inasmuch as for some candidates it is mentioned as 3750 while for others it is mentioned as 3700. The authorities have gone beyond the provisions of the advertisement. Further, the persons who were selected under SC Category from 1 to 8, did not figure in the combined merit list. 5. A reply affidavit has been filed in answer to the rejoinder. It is stated that since the no. of candidates was more, the merit list was prepared in the ratio of 1:2 instead of 1:3. The combined list of candidates was published in the district website inviting objections. The Joint Director, I & PR Department was requested to publish the said notice in two widely circulated Odia Dailies and in one English Daily. The list Page 4 of 8 in which the petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.172 is the merit list of UR candidates which was prepared after deducting the list of candidates likely to get engagement as per the category wise vacancy list i.e., first 12 candidates under UR(F), 8(F-03) from SEBC and 12 (F-04) from SC Category. For such reason, the candidates of SC Category from SI Nos.1 to 8 were not mentioned. 6. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 7. Ms. Pattanaik would argue that when the terms of the advertisement clearly prescribed that the provisional merit list was to be prepared by calling candidates in the ratio of 1:3, the authorities could have been unilaterally change the same to 1:2. Secondly, the merit list is erroneous in view of the fact that, the total marks of +2 is different for different candidates. 8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik would submit that the merit list was prepared by adhering to the principles of reservation as stipulated in the advertisement. Since the number of candidates was more, it was decided to call the candidates for appearing in Page 5 of 8 computer test in the ratio of 1: 2. There being only 12 vacancies in the SC category, the petitioner was found to have secured much less than the last person selected and therefore, even if, he would have been called, the basis of selection being 10 +2 marks, he would not have qualified. He further submits that as per the advertisement, the eligibility condition is 10 +2 or its equivalent as declared by the Board of Secondary Education (BSE). In the process, different candidates having passed in different courses were held to be eligible. The total marks depends on the course but the same is irrelevant since it is the percentage of marks secured out of the total marks, which is relevant and which has been taken into consideration. 9. This Court finds that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the relevant category is SC in which 12 vacancies were notified. Out of 12, 8 vacancies were earmarked for males and 4 for females. The petitioner is therefore, to be considered against the first 8 vacancies occurring in the SC Category(Male). Viewed from the above angle, it is seen that the petitioner secured 74% marks in the CHSE (10 +2) examination and was placed at Sl. No.20 of the provisional/final merit list. The Page 6 of 8 candidate placed at Sl. No.8 secured 77.50 percent. So even if, the petitioner would have been called to attend the computer test, he would still not have qualified inasmuch as 11 persons were above him in the merit list. 10. As regards the mention of different total marks in respect of different candidates, this Court finds the explanation offered by the State Counsel quite plausible. The total marks depends on the particular course pursued by the concerned candidate. Since some courses were held to be equivalent to 10 +2 and the selection of candidates from such courses was based on the percentage secured by them, the total marks, per se, become irrelevant. As regards the allegation regarding non-publication of the merit list, it has not been demonstrated as to how the same has caused any prejudice to the petitioner. This is being said for all the more reason that the petitioner was found to have secured less marks than persons who were selected. 11. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court finds nothing wrong in the method of selection adopted by the Opposite Party authorities so as to be persuaded to interfere therewith. Page 7 of 8 12.
Decision
In the result, the writ application, being devoid of merit is therefore, dismissed. ..…..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 25th of April, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:06:18 Page 8 of 8