Misc. Case No. 113 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 19505 of 2022 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Urmila Kar ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .... _____________________________________________ Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.Dash, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. S.S.Routray, ASC _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 28th November, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner in the present writ application questions the correctness of order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Collector, Balasore in Misc. Case No. 113 of 2021, whereby the BDO, Simulia was directed to re- look into the selection process for engagement of Master Book Keeper (MBK) in Maitapur Gram Panchayat. Page 1 of 8
Legal Reasoning
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that by letter dated 13.07.2021, the B.D.O., Simulia notified the date and time of selection of M.B.K. (and other community resource persons) to the President/Secretary of Maitapur Gram Panchayat Level Federation (GPLF) with request to depute their screening committee members for the purpose. Several persons including the petitioner applied out of whom four persons, including the petitioner and Opposite Party No .6 were short listed. In the merit list published on 19.06.2021, the petitioner and Opposite Party No.6 were found to have secured the same marks but Opposite Party No.6 being senior in age, was selected. According to the petitioner, the selection was done in an illegal manner and the selection committee made several interpolations and tampered with the mark list to give extra marks to the selected candidate. The petitioner therefore, submitted a representation highlighting the irregularities in the selection process before the Collector, Balasore on 14.09.2021. Since no action was taken, she approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 37752 of 2021, Page 2 of 8 which was disposed of by order dated 03.12.2021 directing the Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. The Collector, thereafter considered the representation and after taking note of the findings of the inquiry made by the District Project Manager and others, found that the selection process was vitiated by several irregularities. Moreover, the selection process was not conducted as per the guidelines. Under such circumstances, the Collector, by the order impugned, directed the BDO, Simulia to re-look into the selection process following Government guidelines. 3. According to the petitioner, it being found that the Opposite Party No.6 was illegally selected, the Collector ought to have directed her engagement, as she had secured the highest marks and also had higher qualification. On such facts, the petitioner has filed the writ application with the following prayer; It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may by calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue Rule NISI dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Collector, Balasore under Annexure-5 Page 3 of 8 and the merit list under Annexure-3 shall not be declared as null and void I and why the petitioner shall not be appointed as MBK(Master Book Keeper) in Maitapur GPLF under Simulia Block in the district of Balasore and if the Opp. Parties fails to file show cause or insufficient cause the said rule may kindly be absolute. And further be pleased to pass a writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of M.B.K. in Maitapur GPLF under Maitapur G.P in Simulia Block of Balasore district. And further be pleased to pass any other writ/writs, order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in this case. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound and ever pray. 4. An affidavit has been filed by the BDO, Simulia referring to the impugned order. It is stated that pursuant to such order, the BDO directed the President of Maitapur GPLF by letter dated 28.10.2024 to conduct fresh selection, which was followed by reminder on 08.11.2024. The President of GPLF did not respond for which the BDO intimated the Collector of the said fact with request to take necessary action. The Collector, in his letter dated 14.11.2024 directed the President of Maitapur GPLF to complete the selection process and to submit report by 18.11.2024. Pursuant to such direction, the President requested for one month time and intimated about the passing of resolution dated Page 4 of 8 19.11.2024 whereby the date of selection was fixed to 29.11.2024.
Legal Reasoning
5. Heard Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S.Routray, learned ASC for the State. 6. Mr. Senapati would argue that the inquiry report of the District Project Manager clearly proved that the selection was conducted in an illegal manner only to favour Opposite Party No.6. Since the petitioner had secured the highest mark, the selection committee members practiced fraud to grant higher marks to Opposite Party No.6 only to create a tie so that the Opposite Party No.6 could be selected being senior in age. Under such circumstances, the Collector should have directed engagement of the petitioner than to conduct the selection process afresh. 7. Mr. Routray, learned State counsel would argue that the inquiry conducted by the District Project Manager clearly reveals that the selection process was vitiated by Page 5 of 8 several irregularities. Considering the inquiry report and other materials, the Collector was of the view that the selection made in such manner cannot be sustained. Under such circumstances, the Collector rightly directed the selection process to be conducted afresh. It is open to the petitioner to participate in the fresh selection process. 8. The facts of the case are not disputed. Though much has been argued as regards the so-called ineligibility of Opposite Party No.6 yet the same would not be required to be gone into in detail for the reason that the selection process was itself found to have been conducted contrary to the guidelines. The Collector, in the impugned order has referred to the inquiry report submitted by the District Project Manager wherein the fact of conduct of the selection process in a non-transparent manner was clearly revealed. The Collector has noted each of the irregularities in the impugned order. Most importantly, he found that the guidelines had been violated. Under such circumstances, the Collector rightly directed the BDO to re-look into the selection process following Page 6 of 8 Government guidelines. It goes without saying that if a set of guidelines is in place, there can be no option but to follow the same. Thus, if the selection process is found to have been vitiated, the whole process has to be scrapped. Granting the relief claimed by the petitioner, that is, by directing her engagement, would tantamount to giving a seal of approval to the illegal selection process. In fact, the petitioner has herself pointed out several illegalities and irregularities in the selection process. Obviously, not only Opposite Party No.6 but she too cannot be a beneficiary of such illegality. It has been brought on record that pursuant to the direction of the Collector, the selection process has been initiated afresh, though the result thereof has not been informed to this Court by either of the parties. It shall be open to the petitioner to participate in the fresh selection process, provided the same has not been completed in the meantime. 9. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds nothing wrong in the impugned order so as to be persuaded to interfere therewith. Resultantly, the writ Page 7 of 8 application is held to be devoid of merit and is therefore, dismissed. Deepak ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:03:00 Page 8 of 8