The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Amit Kumar Bhoi ....... Petitioner -Versus- Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar and others ....... Opp. Parties For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. S.N. Pattanaik, Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opp. Party No.8 : Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate ---------------------------- P R E S E N T: MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date of Judgment: 31.10.2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K. Mishra, J. The Petitioner, who was one of the applicant for the post of Secretary of the Bhadra Service Cooperative Society (Opposite Party No.7), being aggrieved by the selection list prepared by the Opposite Party No.7 as at Annexure-4, vide which the present Opposite Party No.8 was held to have qualified for the next phase of selection, so also his disqualification for such selection, has preferred the present Writ Petition. 2. The brief background facts, which lead to filing of the present Writ Petition, are that pursuant to an advertisement published in the local daily as well as in the Notice Board of the Opposite Party No.7-Society for filling up of the post of Secretary, the Petitioner applied for the said post on 10th October, 2014 along with all the required documents. The said application submitted by the Petitioner was also duly acknowledged by the Office of the Opposite Party No.7-Society. 3. Pursuant to the said submission of application, vide notice dated 17th August, 2015, the Petitioner was called upon to attend the Office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (ARCS), Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.4) on 27th August, 2015 for verification of the documents by the Appointment Committee. Pursuant to such notice, Petitioner appeared on the scheduled date and the documents submitted by him were duly verified and found to be in order. W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 2 of 50 After the verification of the said documents, no communication was made to the Petitioner by the Office of the ARCS, Titilagarh. However, knowing about the selection of an ineligible candidate as the Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society, ignoring the merit of the Petitioner, he asked for details of selection documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005, shortly, RTI Act, to the ARCS, Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.4). After getting those documents from the Opposite Party No.4, it came to the notice of the Petitioner that his candidature has been rejected on the plea that the Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate produced by him were beyond the period of six months from the last date of submission of application i.e. 10th October, 2014, as stipulated in the proceeding of the Appointment Committee. 4. Though the Petitioner is having higher percentage of marks than the selected candidate and preferential higher qualification of MCA, his candidature was rejected solely on the ground that the Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate produced by him were beyond the stipulated period of six months from the last date of submission of application as fixed in the proceeding. The said proceeding was subsequent W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 3 of 50 to the date of advertisement as at Annexure-1. Such term was never disclosed/reflected in the advertisement made for the post of Secretary. It also came to the notice of the Petitioner that there is further anomaly in the process of selection of the Secretary, as the Opposite Party No.8, though was not complying with the said stipulation and submitted his Resident Certificate dated 11th October, 2014, which is one day after the last date of application, he was selected fraudulently ignoring the merit of the Petitioner, who has secured higher marks than the Opposite Party No.8 and is having the preferential qualification of MCA as prescribed in the advertisement. Further case of the Petitioner is that at the time of verification of documents on 27th August, 2015, the then S.A.R.C.S (Ex-Member Convenor) one Mr. A.K. Bagarti found that all the documents submitted by the Petitioner are correct and accepted the same. But subsequently, the then S.A.R.C.S. was changed and the new Convenor namely Sri Kshyama Majhi came in place of Mr. A.K. Bagarti, who did not accept the earlier verification and surreptitiously the selection process already undertaken was ignored. A new process was adopted, wherein a clause was added that documents like W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 4 of 50 Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate beyond the period of six months from the last date fixed for receipt of the application will not be accepted. Even at the time of verification of documents, Petitioner submitted the Caste Certificate as well as Resident Certificate of earlier, so also recently issued i.e. of the period within six months, but the verification Officer found all the documents to be in order as per the requirement of the advertisement. Hence, submission of the fresh Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate were not required though it was produced by the Petitioner before the verification officer, who was verifying the documents. However, on the self same ground, the Petitioner’s candidature was rejected and the Resident Certificate of the selected candidate issued subsequent to the last date of submission of the application was accepted and the Opposite Party No.8 was selected even though the Petitioner is having higher marks as well as is having preferential qualification of MCA. 5. It is further case of the Petitioner that, he was totally in dark regarding selection of Opposite Party No.8 and rejection of his candidature on frivolous ground that the W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 5 of 50 documents produced by him were beyond the period of six months as stipulated, which was neither in the advertisement nor communicated to the candidate at the time of verification of documents. The so called proceeding created subsequent to the date of advertisement and such fixation of six months prior to the last date of receiving of the application for the Caste Certificate as well as Resident Certificate was stipulated in the said proceeding. The said decision taken subsequently was also not adhered to in the case of selected candidate i.e. Opposite Party No.8, as his document was of dated 11th October, 2014, which is one day latter to the last date of application i.e. 10th October, 2014. Thus, the so called rule was made applicable to the Petitioner but not in the case of the present Opposite Party No.8. Therefore, the entire selection procedure was fraudulent and against rule prescribed for the selection of the Secretary and on the said ground alone, the selection of Opposite Party No.8 is liable to be struck down. The Petitioner, who is suitable as per the advertisement, is to be allowed to man the post of Secretary. 6. Being aggrieved by the said illegalities committed by the Appointment Committee and after getting information W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 6 of 50 under the R.T.I. Act, immediately the Petitioner represented to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Bolangir (Opposite Party No.3), Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Titilagarh (Opposite Party no.4) and the President of Bhadra Service Cooperative Society-cum-Chairman, Bhadra (Opposite Party No.9) to enquire into the illegality committed on selection to the post of Secretary of the said Society, but no action was taken by the said authorities on the representation of the Petitioner. 7. It was reliably learnt that the entire process of appointment for the post of Secretary for Bhadra Service Cooperative Society has been manipulated by the Selection Committee to appoint Opposite Party No.8, ignoring the merit of the Petitioner. The said aspect has been pointed out by the other members of the said Society to the D.R.C.S., Bolangir, but no step has been taken to enquire about the said matter. Furthermore, even though the selection has been made on 4th December, 2015, but the Opposite Party no.8 was never appointed till 5th February, 2016, which was evident from the letter of the ARCS, Titilagrh addressing one Sagar Rana as the Secretary, Bhadra SCS and subsequently on 24th November, W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 7 of 50 2016, when the present Opposite Party No.8 issued a letter to the Petitioner signing as the Secretary of the said Society. Thus such action of the Selection Committee is a colourable exercise of power to violate all the procedures to give appointment to the present Opposite Party No.8 as Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society. 8. In response to the averments made in the Writ Petition, the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.4) and Sub Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society-cum-Member Convenor, Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.5) have filed a joint Counter Affidavit. A stand has been taken therein that the Opposite Party No.4 being the Member Convenor was noticed on 12th August, 2015 intimating that the Appointment Committee was fixed to be held on 27th August, 2015 at 11.00 A.M. in the Office of the A.R.C.S., Titilagarh Circle. As some of the Committee Members were found absent on the scheduled date and time, the Appointment Committee meeting could not be held on the said date. As many as nine candidates out of thirteen candidates, so noticed, were present on the scheduled date and time for verification of their original documents. W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 8 of 50 Accordingly, their original documents were verified. The said meeting was reconvened on 4th December, 2015. On the said date the Appointment Committee after scrutiny and proper verification of the documents, prepared a merit list. The Committee found Opposite Party No.8 to be meritorious
Legal Reasoning
among the other participants. Accordingly, Sri Digambar Sahu, the present Opposite Party No.8, was selected as the Secretary of the Society. It has further been pleaded in the Counter Affidavit that the selection of Opposite Party No.8 as the Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society is the decision of the Appointment Committee, which should have been communicated by the Committee to the Petitioner. The Opposite Party No.4 is no way responsible for such non- communication of the result to the Petitioner. However, the information sought for by the Petitioner under the R.T.I. Act has already been provided by the Opposite Party No.4. So far as Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate are concerned, it has been stated that the said certificates are valid for one year from the date of issuance of such certificates. The Appointment Committee in its meeting unanimously set a standard with regard to age, residence, caste and knowledge W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 9 of 50 in computer application and decided to accept Resident and Caste Certificates issued recently and not to entertain those certificates, which were issued beyond six months of last date fixed for receipt of application in the Society. It has further been stated that the Caste Certificate issued in the year 2011 i.e. Misc. Case No.08/900/2011 by the Tahasildar, Saintala, was submitted by the Petitioner along with the application, which was supposed to be submitted on or before 10th October, 2014 by 4.00 P.M. As the Petitioner failed to submit recent Resident Certificate, his application was not considered by the Appointment Committee. The guidelines of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) were followed by the Appointment Committee as well as by the Bhadra Society in the matter of recruitment of the Secretary of the said Society. Further stand of the said Opposite Parties that the allegation of the Petitioner was enquired into by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society Bolangir Division. After verification of records, it was found that the Petitioner’s name was not included in the merit list. W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 10 of 50 9. So far as the allegation made in paragraph-5 of the Writ Petition, it has been admitted that Opposite Party No.8 had submitted the Resident Certificate one day after the last date of application. It has been further stated in the Counter Affidavit that the Appointment Committee was scheduled to be held on 27th August, 2015. However, as one of the Committee Members was absent on the scheduled date and time, the Appointment Committee could not be held on the said date. Mr. A.K. Bagarty being the Convenor of the Committee, verified the submitted documents with the originals, but was not competent to take a decision without the other Committee Members. Hence, on the next date of meeting i.e. on 4th December, 2015, Shri Kshyama Majhi, S.A.R.C.S-cum-Convenor along with other Committee Members verified the documents and selected the Secretary basing on the academic carrier of the candidates. As per guidelines of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the selection list was prepared and the Opposite Party No.8 was found to be most meritorious candidate amongst other candidates. Accordingly, he was selected as such. A stand has also been taken in the Counter W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 11 of 50 Affidavit that the Appointment Committee is the Competent Authority to take decision in the matter of selection of the Secretary of the Society and the Opposite Party No.4 has no role in the said selection process. It has also been stated that based on the allegation of the Petitioner, the matter was enquired into by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bolangir Division and after verification of records, it was found that the Petitioner’s name was not included in the merit list. On receipt of the application of the Petitioner under the R.T.I. Act, the Opposite Party no.4 issued letters both to the Secretary of PACS and to the Ex-Secretary of the Society seeking information. Inadvertently, the name of Sri Sagar Rana got mentioned in the said communication made to the Secretary of PACS, who had supplied the information under the R.T.I. Act. Thus, it has been clarified that the said letter of the Opposite Party No.4 was with regard to supply of documents and information to the Petitioner and not related to appointment. 10. Being noticed, the private Opposite Party no.8, whose selection and appointment as Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society is under challenge, has filed a Counter W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 12 of 50 Affidavit taking a stand therein that replies of Opposite Party Nos.9 and 10 are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. The new Committee must have been arrayed as
Decision
Opposite Party for maintainability of the Writ Petition. Further stand of private Opposite Party No.8 is that the rule provides for validity of Resident as well as Caste Certificate. In absence of the said certificates, acceptance of candidature of the Petitioner itself is bad in law. The Selection Committee rightly rejected the candidature of the Petitioner. It has further been pleaded by the Opposite Party No.8 that the powers of relaxation and acceptance of the advertisement vests with the competency of the Selection Committee in terms of the advertisement and action of the Selection Committee is within the framework of law. A stand has also been taken by the Opposite Party No.8 that, he has already completed more than six years of service and the decision of the Committee is well within the terms of advertisement with regard to validity of Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate. The same are valid for one year from the date of issue of such certificates and earlier it was up to six months as per prevailing Rules. Hence, cancellation of candidature of the Petitioner is legal W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 13 of 50 and justified. It has further been stated in the said Counter Affidavit that the Appointment Committee in its meeting, unanimously set a standard with regard to age, residence, caste and knowledge in computer application and decided to accept the Resident and Caste Certificate issued recently and not to entertain those certificates which were issued beyond six months of last date fixed for receipt of application by the Society. Since the Petitioner failed to submit recent Resident Certificate, his application has not been considered by the Appointment Sub-Committee, which is the competent authority to take a decision in the matter of selection of the Secretary of the Society. 11. Though notices were duly served on Bhadra Service Cooperative Society, President, Vice-President and Authorised Committee of the Bhadra Cooperative Society, Bhadra, who have been arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.7, 9, 10 & 11 respectively, the said Opposite Parties shoes not to appear in the present case to have their say and oppose the prayer made in the Writ Petition. 12. In response to the Counter Affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5, the Petitioner has filed a Rejoinder W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 14 of 50 Affidavit dated 18th April, 2022 indicating therein that the meeting of the Appointment Committee was supposed to be held on 27th August, 2015 in the Office of the ARCS, Titilagarh. But due to absence of some Committee members, the meeting of the Appointment Committee could not be held. Subsequently, on 4th December, 2015, it was reconvened and the Appointment Committee after scrutiny and proper verification of the documents prepared the merit list and found the Opposite Party No.8 to be meritorious and selected him as Secretary. The said selection was surreptitiously done and was neither communicated to anybody nor notified by the Society. It is only when the Petitioner asked for the result of the interview under the R.T.I. Act, it was communicated by the Opposite Party No.4, wherefrom the Petitioner could came to know that his candidature has been rejected on the ground of non-fulfilling of the criteria as to possession of Caste Certificate as well as Resident Certificate issued prior to six months from the last date of submission of application i.e. 10th October, 2014. Further, it has been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that the plea of Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 that the Resident Certificate and Caste Certificate are valid for W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 15 of 50 one year from the date of issue of such certificate, though was very much known to the Opposite Parties, but the same was never specified in the advertisement, as at vide Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. Similarly, the plea of the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 that the Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 4th December, 2015 has unanimously set a standard with regard to age, resident, caste and knowledge in computer application and decided to accept the Resident and Caste Certificate issued recently and not to entertain those certificates which were beyond six months of the last date fixed for receipt of the application in the society, is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of well established position of law that the terms and conditions for recruitment cannot be changed after selection process starts without notice to the candidates and deviation from it will amount to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India as reported in the case of A.S. Ananya Pradhan vs. Govt. of India and others, reported in 2020(II) ILR-CUT-551. 13. It has further been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 have admitted in the Counter Affidavit that Opposite Party No.8 submitted his W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 16 of 50 Resident Certificate one day after the last date of submission of the application i.e. on 11th October, 2014, which was accepted and Opposite Party No.8 was selected ignoring the merit of the present Petitioner, who secured highest total marks that the present Opposite Party No.8 and is having MCA degree which was specifically provided in the advertisement vide Annexure-1 that preference shall be given to the candidate having MCA from a recognized University. It has further been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that regarding change of rule of accepting Resident Certificate six months prior to last date of application decided on 4th December, 2015 in the committee meeting, as at Annexure-3 to the writ petition, without any mention of the said term in the advertisement vide Annexure-1, is contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in Mrs. Madhumita Das vs. State of Odisha, reported in 100 (2005) CLT 465. Surprisingly the committee accepted the Resident Certificate of Opposite Party No.8 dated 11th October, 2014, which is one day later than the last date of submission of application i.e. 10th October, 2014. The said legal acceptance of the Resident Certificate of Opposite Party No.8 was justified by the Committee on the W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 17 of 50 plea that the Opposite Party No.8 had given an undertaking on 9th October, 2014 that he would submit Resident Certificate by 12th October, 2014. Similar opportunity was not provided to any other candidates for submitting the Resident Certificate beyond the period of last date of submission of the application by giving any notice to the said effect. Thus, there is flagrant violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India by not affording due opportunity to all the candidates To demonstrate that the Opposite Party No.8 was not possessing the Resident Certificate issued within six months prior to last date of application i.e. 10th October, 2014, the representation given by the Opposite Party No.8 dated 9th October, 2014 has been appended to the Rejoinder Affidavit as Annexure-2 (same as Annexure-5 Series , at running page 63 of the brief, filed by the State Opposite Party No5). That apart, it has been reiterated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that in order to benefit the Opposite Party No.8 illegally, as he has secured less marks than the Petitioner, such mischief of changing the rule subsequent to the advertisement for submission of Resident Certificate prior to six months of the last date of submission of application was W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 18 of 50 introduced. Such resolution is also contrary to the statue i.e. the revised rules for getting Resident Certificate, which provides that the validity of the Resident Certificate is one year from the date of issue of such certificate. Despite such rule, the change had been resorted to by the committee mush after the said advertisement, to deprive the petitioner from getting the job of Secretary and wrongfully gain the Opposite Party No.8 by accepting his Resident Certificate subsequent to the last date of submission of application. A stand has also been taken in the Rejoinder that the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 have set the norms subsequent to the advertisement vide Annexure-1. Opportunity to comply the same was given to the Opposite Party no.8, who complied the same on submitting the Resident Certificate on 11th October, 2014 and was selected. But when the Petitioner asked for the information to the Tahasildar regarding Resident Certificate of Opposite Party No.8, it was found that the certificate was manually issued on 11th October, 2014 in favour of Opposite Party No.8. Subsequently another certificate as per Form No.3 of Rule 3 of Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 was issued on 15th October, 2014. Surprisingly, the manually issued W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 19 of 50 certificate dated 11th October, 2014 issued in favour of the Opposite Party No.8 was accepted and he was selected, even if there is no such contemplation of issuance of the Resident Certificate manually under the said Rules, 1984. 14. It is further stand of the Petitioner that the Resident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar on 31st October, 2014 in his favour was not accepted even though it in terms of the changed norms as per the decision of the Committee and the same was prior to six months from the last date of submission of application. The Petitioner gave a grievance petition before the Opposite Party No.4 ( the A.R.C.S., Titlagarh) regarding such act of not accepting his Resident Certificate as was being accepted in case of Opposite Party No.8. The Sub-Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society, being directed by the Opposite Party No-4, made an enquiry regarding such illegalities, on 28th August, 2017 . On the said date also the Petitioner submitted the fresh Resident Certificate issued in his favour dated 31st October, 2014. But the same was turned down vide Report dated 20.09.2017 , as at Annexure -6 to the Rejoinder, on the ground that since the Committee has already appointed the Opposite Party No.8 W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 20 of 50 and the matter is subjudice before this Court, it will be decided as per the judgment of this Court. 15. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the Writ Petition submitted, the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 have admitted in their Counter Affidavit that the present Opposite Party No.8 was not possessing the Resident Certificate as on 10th October, 2014, which was the last date of submission of application for the post of Secretary of Bhadra Service Cooperative Society Limited. Drawing attention to the averments made in paragraph-8 of the Rejoinder Affidavit, he further submitted that though there is no such provision under the Rules, 1984 for issuance of Residence Certificate manually, but the Tahasildar, to the reason best known to him, issued the Resident Certificate in favour of the Opposite Party No.8 manually on 11th October, 2014 i.e. one day after the last date of submission of application for the post of Secretary. Subsequently another certificate as per Form No.3 of Rule-3 of Rules, 1984 was issued on 15th October, 2014, which was entertained by the Selection Committee with an ulterior motive to accommodate the Opposite Party No.8. Mr. Mishra W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 21 of 50 further submitted, admittedly notice was given by the Secretary of Bhadra PACS to all the applicants, including the present Petitioner, to attend the Office of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Titilagarh Circle, Titilagarh vide Annexure-5 along with all the original documents for verification by the Appointment Committee. The Petitioner submitted the Resident Certificate as well as Caste Certificate issued in his favour by the Competent Authority, both dated 31st October, 2014, so also similar certificates again issued by the Competent Authority on 25th November, 2014. The said certificates were issued well within six months from the last date of submission of application for the post of Secretary of the said Society i.e. 10th October, 2014 and those were latest certificates, even though were beyond last date of submission of application i.e. 10th October, 2014 as was submitting by the Opposite Party No.8. Though the Committee accepted and entertained the Resident Certificate of Opposite Party No.8 issued on 11.08.2014 but to the reason best known, the latest Resident Certificate as well as Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the Petitioner was not W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 22 of 50 entertained by the authority concerned, thereby the Petitioner was discriminated. 16. Mr. Mishra further submitted that once norms were published in the advertisement for notice of all, the same should not have been changed at a later stage without notice to any of the candidates and general public and without issuing any corrigendum for rectification of the advertisement in question. He further submitted that there was no such stipulation in the said advertisement. Much after the date of advertisement, the said norm as to date of issuance of certificate by the Competent Authority was introduced being so decided in a meeting. His client is more meritorious than the present Opposite Party No.8 and is possessing higher qualification of MCA, as prescribed in the said advertisement and had secured higher marks than the said Opposite Party. Without any cogent reason, the said Caste Certificate as well as Resident Certificate, both dated 31st October, 2014, which were produced in addition to the Caste Certificate as well as Resident Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, should have been accepted to consider his candidature to be appointed as Secretary of the said Society, as was done in W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 23 of 50 case of the present Opposite Party No.8, who also obtained the Resident Certificate after the cut-off date for submission of application for the said post of Secretary i.e. on 10th October, 2014. Mr. Mishra further submitted that in view of the settled position of law, it is a fit case, where this Court should interfere and set aside the selection and appointment of the Opposite Party No.8 as the Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society and give necessary direction to select and appoint the present Petitioner in the said post. 17. To substantiate his submissions Mr. Mishra relied on Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Dipali Chand vs. Chairman, Orissa Public Service Commission and 41 others, reported in 2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 399, in Mrs. Madhumita Das and another vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 100 (2005) CLT 465 and judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in A.S. Ananya Pradhan vs. Government of India and others, reported in 2020 (II) ILR – CUT – 551. 18. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5, reiterating the stand taken in the Counter Affidavit, submitted that the Caste W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 24 of 50 Certificate and Resident Certificate issued under the Rules, 1984 are valid for one year from the date of issue of such certificates. However, the Committee, in view of the Circular issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar dated 12th February, 2014, which governs the rules and guidelines regarding direct recruitment of Secretary of the S.C.S. , in its proceeding meeting held on 4th December, 2015 rightly resolved that the Resident as well as Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority must have been issued within six months preceding the last date of submitting the application to be one of the eligibility criteria for such selection/appointment . There is no infirmity in the said decision taken in the meeting held under the chairmanship of the President of Bhadra S.C.S. Mr. Pattanaik further submitted that the Opposite Party No.8 had given a written representation on 9th October, 2014 to the Secretary, Bhadra S.C.S indicating therein that he has submitted his old Caste as well as Resident Certificate so also receipt in proof of applying for those certificates afresh and given an undertaking therein that he will produce fresh certificate within three days from the said date i.e. by 12th October, W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 25 of 50 2014. In terms of the said undertaking, the candidature of the Opposite Party No.8 was accepted by the authority concerned. Opposite Party No.8 being meritorious amongst the candidates, was shortlisted for appointment. He was rightly given appointment in the post of Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society. There is no infirmity or illegality in such appointment as has been alleged by the Petitioner. 19. Though there is no specific averment in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.8 with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition, Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.8, drawing attention of this Court to paragraph-2 of the Counter Affidavit filed by his client submitted, the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy under Section 67 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, shortly, OCS Act. He further submitted, instead of approaching the Cooperative Tribunal, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, which is liable to be dismissed in limine in view of the availability of alternative remedy. He further submitted, the cause of action arose in the year 2016. As in the meantime around seven years have W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 26 of 50 elapsed, the new Committee should have been arrayed as one of the Opposite Parties for the purpose of maintainability of the Writ Petition. Reiterating the stand taken in the Counter Affidavit, Mr. Dalai further submitted, the Opposite Party No.8 has already completed more than six years of service and the decision of the Committee is within the terms of the advertisement with regard to Caste Certificate as well as Resident Certificate. The Caste Certificate is valid for one year from the date of issue of such certificate. Earlier it was valid up to six months as per the prevailing rules. Hence, cancellation of candidature of the Petitioner is justified in the eye of law. He further submitted, the Appointment Committee was justified by setting a standard in its meeting with regard to age, resident, caste and knowledge in computer application and decided to accept the Resident Certificate issued recently and not to entertain those certificates which were issued beyond preceding six months of the last date of receipt of the application by the Society. Since the Petitioner failed to submit his recent Resident Certificate, rightly his case was not considered by the Appointment Committee, who is the W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 27 of 50 competent authority to take a decision in the matter of selection of the Secretary of the Society. 20. Before dealing with the pleadings on record, so also arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the issue involved in the present lis, it would be apt to reproduce below the advertisement dated 20th September, 2014 as at Annexure-1. “OFFICE OF THE BHADRA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. At : Bhadra, PO: Bhadra,Block : Saintala, Dist: Bolangir, PIN-767032 Regd. No.18/B, Dt. 10.06.1971 (Under Asst/Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Titilagarh Circle, Titilagarh) ADVERTISEMENT One post of Secretary of Bhadra SCS Ltd., to be filled up by Direct Recruitment. Application form can be obtained in persons from the Office of Bhadra SCS on payment of Rs.100.00 from Dt.22.09.2014 to 10.10.2014 during 11 A.M. to 3 P.M. (Except Holidays) The duly filled in application along with required documents and money receipt in support of deposit should be submitted in the society office from Dt. 08.10.2014 to 10.10.2014 during 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. Eligibility & Educational Qualification: 1. The Candidate must belong to the area of operation of Bhadra SCS. 2. In case of non-availability of suitable candidates within the whole area of operation of the Bhadra SCS candidates belonging to the Saintala W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 28 of 50 Panchayat Samiti and then the Balangir District shall be considered. 3. The candidates must be having minimum qualification of Graduation from any recognized University with computer proficiency. 4. Preference shall be given to the candidate having Higher Diploma in Cooperative Management/M.A./M.sc./M.com/MCA/MBA/LLM/ BBA/BCA/DCMA from a recognized University. Scale of Pay : Rs.5,200/- - 20,200/- with GP 1900/- subject to fulfillment of conditions as laid down in the Order No. : 18672 Dt. 31.07.2009 of the RCS, Odisha, Bhubanswar. Age : A Candidate must not be less than 21 years or more than 32 years of age as on Dt. 01.04.2014. The upper age lime shall be 37 years in respect of candidates belonging to SC/ST/SEBC/Physically Handicapped and Ex-Serviceman. The Upper ag limit shall be 45 years in respect of candidates employed in any Co-op. Societies. N.B. : (i) Application received after stipulated date or incompletion application shall not be entertained. (ii) The management of the society reserves the right to amend/alter/cancel the recruitment at any time without assigning reason thereof. By Order of Management in Charge, BHADRA SCS LTD. Sd/- Secretary, BHADRA SCS LTD.” (Emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 29 of 50 21. As the date of advertisement is missing from Annexure-1, being desired by this Court, the copy of paper publication was filed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in form of an I.A. i.e. I.A. No.3118 of 2022. From the said advertisement dated 20th September, 2014 as extracted above, it is amply clear that application form for post of Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society has to be obtained in person from the Office of the Society on payment of Rs.100/- from 22nd September, 2014 to 10th October, 2014 during 11 A.M. to 3 P.M. (Except Holidays). The duly filled in application along with required documents and money receipt in support of deposit should be submitted in the Society Office from 8th October, 2014 to 10th October, 2014 during 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. That apart, the eligibility and educational qualification required to be possessed by the candidate was also detailed in the said advertisement clearly indicated therein that the candidate must belong to the area of operation of Bhadra S.C.S. In case of non-availability of suitable candidates within the whole area of operation of the Bhadra S.C.S, candidates belonging to the Saintala Panchayat Samiti and then the Bolangir District shall be considered. The candidates must be W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 30 of 50 having minimum qualification of graduation from any recognized University with computer proficiency. That apart, it was indicated in the said advertisement that preference shall be given to the candidate having higher Diploma in Cooperative Management / M.A. / M.com / MCA / MBA / LLM / BBA / BCA / DCMA from any recognized University. That apart, there was a mention regarding age of the candidate and in the noting given below the said advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that application received after stipulated date or incompletion application shall not be entertained. It is also admitted that pursuant to the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied in the prescribed form along with the documents required to be submitted. The same was duly acknowledged by the Receiving Officer on 10th October, 2014 i.e. the last date of submission of such application. It is also admitted that from the pleadings and documents on record that in a meeting (proceeding) under the Chairmanship of the then President of the Society held on the schedule date, time and place fixed as per notice dated 28th November, 2015 of the Member Convener of the Appointment Committee, on request, the Member Convener read out the W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 31 of 50 circular issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar dated 12th February, 2014 governing the Rules and Guidelines regarding direct recruitment of Secretaries of the S.C.S. Before finalizing the selection process, the Appointment Committee unanimously decided to select the candidate in three stages. Paragraphs-2 & 5 of the said proceeding of Bhadra S.C.S. Ltd. dated 4th December, 2015 being germane for proper adjudication of the present lis are reproduced below: “2. That, in the first stage the Appointment Committee has unanimously set a standard keeping the Prime requisites for selection such as qualification, Age, Residence, Caste and Knowledge in the Computer application as per the prescribed guideline. In order to maintain fair- play, the appointment committee has decided unanimously to accept the Residence and Caste Certificates issued recently and not to entertain those certificates which were issued beyond six months of last date fixed for receipt of application in the society. 5. That, the Appointment Committee has unanimously decided to prepare a list of candidates having minimum eligibility criteria in the following manner. W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 32 of 50 i) As regards age, the date line i.e. 01/04/2014 will be taken to consideration as per advertisement. ii) As regards the candidates within area of operation, the Residence Certificate issued by the Competent Authority recently i.e. 6 months prior to last date of apply. iii) As regards relaxation of Age/Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority recently i.e. 6 months prior to 01/04/2014 will be taken into consideration for the sake of fair-play of the selection procedure. iv) Minimum qualification be graduation in any stream of recognized university. v) Computer knowledge :- Supported with valid certificates issued from the recognized institutions.” (Emphasis supplied) Though the names of the present Petitioner and others were found place in the list of candidates belonging to the area of operation of the said S.C.S as per the address given in the application form, were disqualified on the ground of non-furnishing Caste as well as Resident Certificate in terms of the said decision of the proceeding meeting held on 4th December, 2015 i.e. almost fourteen months after the last date of submission of application. Only the present Opposite Party No.8 along with one Binod Jyotish were W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 33 of 50 enlisted/shortlisted as per merit for consideration of their case for appointment as Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7- Society. The Opposite Party No.8, who allegedly secured more marks than one Binod Jyotish and stood first, was given appointment as Secretary of the said Society. It is further admitted case of the parties that before such decision was taken in the proceeding meeting dated 4th December, 2015, the Secretary of the Society, vide notice dated 17th August, 2015 intimated all the applicants including the present Petitioner, so also Opposite Party No.8 to attend the Office of the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Titilagarh Circle, Titilagarh along with all the original documents for verification by the Appointment Committee. On the said date both the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.8 were possessing Resident Certificate issued by the Competent Authority i.e, the Tahasildar of the locality after 10th October, 2014, which was the last date fixed for submission of the application for the post of Secretary of the said society as per advertisement. The Resident Certificate produced by the Petitioner is dated 31st October, 2014, whereas the said certificate produced by the Opposite Party No.8 is dated 11th W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 34 of 50 October, 2014. Further, as per the pleadings made in the Rejoinder Affidavit, so also the documents appended thereto, it is also well proved that the certificate produced by the Opposite Party No.8 in terms of his undertaking has been issued manually by the authority concerned is dated 11.10.2014, whereas the actual computerized Resident Certificate in the prescribed form was issued by the same authority on 15th October, 2015. It is also admitted fact that till the proceeding meeting of the Bhadra S.C.S. Ltd. was held on 4th December, 2015 for selection/appointment of the Secretary of the said Society, pursuant to advertisement dated 20th September, 2014. A decision was taken on the said date to prepare a list of candidates putting one of the conditions that the candidates residing within the area of operation, must possess the Resident Certificate issued by the competent Authority recently i.e. six months prior to the last date of making application to be one of the eligibility criteria as extracted above. On the very same day the Petitioner and similarly placed others were debarred from their candidatureship without any intimation, whereas the Opposite Party No.8, being similarly placed, having no W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 35 of 50 Resident Certificate as on 10th October, 2014 i.e. the last date of submitting such application, was short listed by the Committee along with one Binod Jyotish and was declared to be selected as the Secretary of Bhadra S.C.S. It is also the admitted case that after taking such decision, the Appointment Committee never issued any corrigendum to the said effect pursuant to the advertisement as at Annexure-1 clarifying therein that the candidate has to produce the Resident Certificate issued by the Competent Authority issued within six months prior to the last date of submitting the application. Further, no intimation was given to the Petitioner informing him about the reason of non-consideration of his candidatureship for the post of Secretary of the said Service Cooperative Society, so also the final outcome of the said selection process. Further, though as per Rule, Resident Certificate is valid for one year, contrary to the same, it was resolved that the said certificate issued recently i.e. six months prior to the last date of submission of application will be acceptable. The compilation as at Anexure-4, discloses the list of candidates who were qualified or disqualified for the next phase of selection. From the said document it is well W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 36 of 50 evident that one Binod Jyotish was shown to be qualified along with the Opposite Party No.8, though his date of issuance of Resident Certificate has been indicated as “01.11.2013”, which is admittedly beyond six months preceding 10th October, 2014, which was the last date of submission of application. Similarly, in the said compilation, it has been indicated that the date of issuance of Resident Certificate in favour of the Opposite Party No.8 is “11.10.2014”, i.e. after 10.10.2014. Though the Petitioner gave a grievance petition to the President of the Society highlighting the said illegality and irregularity made by the Selection Committee, the same remained unattended. It has also been demonstrated by the Petitioner that on the date of verification of original documents i.e. on 27.08.2015, he produced fresh Resident as well as Caste Certificate, both dated 31.10.2014. Though Opposite Party No.8’s certificate dated 11.10.2014 was entertained by the Authority, to the reason best known to the Selection Committee, the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected. To justify acceptance as such certificate submitted by the Opposite Party No.8 belatedly, a letter dated 9th October, 2014 has W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 37 of 50 been annexed to the Counter Affidavit, as at running page 63, vide which a request has been made by the Opposite Party No.8 to the Secretary of the Society seeking for three days time to produce the Resident Certificate. Further, the receipt/acknowledgement dated 9th October, 2014, as at running page 64, well demonstrates that though the Opposite Party No.8 applied for the said post on 9.10.2014 , on the very same day he also applied for Resident Certificate and the expected date of delivery of resident certificate has been indicated in the said receipt to be “24th October, 2014”. 22. Law is well settled that the selection process for appointment to a post starts from the date the applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of application, has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided, he/she fulfils the requisite qualification or eligibility criteria. Therefore, the eligibility criteria as it stands on the date of submission of applications, is to be applied. 23. In Dipali Chand (supra) vide paragraph-15 it was held as follows: “15. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process starts from the date the applications are invited and any W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 38 of 50 person eligible on the last date of submission of the application, has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he/she fulfils the requisite qualification or eligibility criteria. Therefore, the eligibility criteria as it stands on the last date of submission of the applications is to be applied. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court, In Dr. M.V.Nair v. Union of India and othrs, (1993) 2 SCC 429, held as under: “It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date.” In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr. V. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723, the Supreme Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. In Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & Anr., 1995 (Suppl.) 4 SCC 706, the Supreme Court held: “It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 39 of 50 qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules.” In Ashok Kumr Shrma & Ors. V. Chander Sekhar & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 18, the Supreme Court held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be adjudged with reference to that date and that date alone and it is a well established propositions of law.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. Similarly in Madhumita Das (supra) the Division of this Court, vide paragraph-28 held as follows: “28. Although under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, right to equality has been guaranteed by providing therein that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India but the Constitution makers have taken special care of the citizens of India in matters relating to employment. Article 14 does not discriminate a non-citizen with a citizen as the word "person" has been used therein, while Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 16 is available only for the citizens. Clause (1) of the Article 16 is available only for the citizens. Clause W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 40 of 50 (1) of the Article 16 provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Therefore, if an advertisement is issued inviting applications to fill up the posts, the citizens should be provided full knowledge of the procedure for selection and the norms fixed for the same. If the norms are changed subsequently, without any notice to them, how can it be said that the citizens have got equality of opportunity in relation to employment? In the instant case, the norms fixed in the advertisement were scaled down to the extent that, instead of 50% minimum qualifying mark in the written test for being called for viva voce test, the same was lowered down to that of 35% marks in each paper and 40% in aggregate. Had the citizens knowledge about the change of norms, there would have been possibility that the prospective candidates, who did not intend to apply for selection just because of the reason that the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination were higher, i.e., 50%, in each paper, and there was uncertainty of number of vacancies also, would have thought that on liberalisation of norms they would be able to compete and as such they would have applied for the post after the change of norms. Non-providing of knowledge about such change of norms amounted to deprivation of the prospective candidates from participating in the process of selection W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 41 of 50 and was thus violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. It will be pertinent to mention here that not only the minimum qualifying marks were lowered down, but some other norms were also changed i.e., cut off marks of the viva voce test were fixed on the date of interview/viva voce test and also it was further added that the academic career of the candidates was also to be taken into consideration. On perusal of the result sheet, it was found that apart from 200 marks in the written examination and 30 marks in the interview which was shown in the advertisement, 10 marks more were allocated for length of practice and career marking for which no decision was taken by the Committee/Full Court and, therefore, instead of total maximum of 230 marks, the selection was made on the basis of maximum 240 marks for which no information was given to the citizens/prospective candidates and, as such the same was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. In the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors., reported in 2005 (2) Supreme 615, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission had initially advertised for recruitment to 8 posts of Asst. Public Relation Officers. Subsequently 7 more vacancies were advertised. Therefore, the recruitment was made for 15 vacancies. The selection was finalized on 2.7.1996. During the currency of the wait list the W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 42 of 50 competent authority again notified 14 more vacancies on 14.4.1997 to be filled up by the candidates from the wait list. In that case, the Apex Court held that there were two principles in service laws, which were indisputable. Firstly, there could not have been appointment beyond the advertised number; and secondly, the norms of selection could not have been altered after the selection process had started. Paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court is reproduced hereunder: "The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by Learned Counsel for the applicant- respondent No. 1 it was unamended rule, which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criteria e.g., minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 43 of 50 statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the Rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only." In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, and the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court has come to the conclusion that once selection process was started the norms fixed in the advertisement could not have been changed and if they were liable to be changed then the same should have been published in the like manner in which initial advertisement was published. Non-publication of the norms changed subsequently after starting of the selection process was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution and thus is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is of opinion that the result of selection in respect of those opposite parties who had secured 50% or more marks in the written test and were declared selected should not be disturbed. However, in respect of those opposite parties who had secured less than 50% marks in the written examination, their selection and appointments are liable to be W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 44 of 50 quashed and further a Writ of Mandamus is liable to be issued to the authorities concerned to consider the case of the candidates, who had secured 50% or more marks in the written test and to declare their result after adding viva voce marks to their marks in the written examination, and excluding the marks awarded to them by Selection Committee for length of practice and for academic career since this norm was not there in the advertisement.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. In A.S. Ananya Pradhan (supra), the coordinate Bench, vide paragraph Nos.19 to 23 which are extracted below, observed as follows: “19. Keeping in view the purpose of education, as discussed above, vis-à-vis objectives of the scheme of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, as enumerated in the prospectus itself, in order to achieve such objectives steps had been taken for admission of the students for the session 2020 in Class-VI by holding a test in consonance with the conditions stipulated in the prospectus itself. As has been stated, the petitioner was eligible to make an application and pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner, having satisfied the requirement thereof, applied for admission in Class-VI. So far as reservation of seats is concerned, nothing had been mentioned in the prospectus with regard to reservation for OBC category students. Basing on W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 45 of 50 the conditions stipulated in the prospectus itself, the petitioner applied for admission in Class-VI course of Navodaya Vidyalaya and appeared the test scheduled to be held on 11.01.2020. By that time, the notice issued on 31.03.2020 making provision for reservation for OBC category students had not seen the light of the day nor could the same be read as part of the prospectus to extend the benefit to OBC category students. Pursuant to the prospectus issued if the students had applied for and they had been considered and called upon to appear the test, consequently, when the game had already started, by issuing a notice on 31.03.2020 in the midst of selection process the rule of game should not have been changed. 20. In Kishor Kumar (supra), the apex Court, while interpreting Rule 15(2) of U.P. Pharmacists Services Rules, 1980, held that having recruitment process started, norms/principles/ rules applicable cannot be changed during pendency of selection process to disadvantage of those candidates who were denied appointment by virtue of same rules, and directed that the candidates to be appointed in order of their inter se seniority as per vacancies available in each year in terms of pre-existing practice. 21. In Mrs. Madhumita Das (supra), while dealing with a matter relating to recruitment of Ad-hoc Addl. District Judges under the Odisha W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 46 of 50 Judicial Service (Special Scheme) Rules, 2001, the question in regard to change of norms published in the advertisement, without notice to the candidates and the general public, was under consideration. The process of selection was conducted in the changed norms. Hence, the Division Bench of this Court held the action so taken was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, reason being that once norms were published in the advertisement for notice of all, whether the same could be changed at a later stage without notice to any of the candidates and general public and without issuing any corrigendum to the advertisement in question. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court held that once advertisement was issued to fill up a post in any office under the State, then it is the duty of the recruiting authority to give necessary information to all in a precise and clear manner. 22. In Bharat Ch. Jena (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that once the selection process was started, the norms fixed in the advertisement could not have been changed and if they were liable to be changed, then the same should have been published in the like manner in which initial advertisement was published. Non-publication of the norms changed subsequently after starting of the selection process was violative W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 47 of 50 of Article 16 of the Constitution and thus is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court has also taken similar view in Subhaya Prusty (supra), Dr. Smrutisudha Pattnaik (supra) and Suchitra Sethi (supra). 23. Applying the ratio, as discussed above, to the present context, there cannot be any second opinion with regard to law laid down by the apex Court as well as this Court and the same can also be applicable to the present context, in view of the fact that once the process of selection started for admission in Class-VI of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bagudi, Balasore pursuant to prospectus in Annexure-1, the same cannot be changed or altered pursuant to subsequent notice issued under Annexure-3 dated 31.03.2020, which is violative of Article- 16 of the Constitution of India.” (Emphasis supplied) 26. In view of the factual scenario and the legal proposition as detailed above, this Court is of the considered view that the decision taken in the proceeding meeting dated 4th December, 2015, which was almost after 14 months of the advertisement made, being never communicated to the Petitioner and similarly placed others, is illegal and arbitrary. This Court is of the further view that since the Opposite Party W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 48 of 50 No.8’s case was considered for appointment to the said post of Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society, who was not having the Resident Certificate as on the last date of making such application, it is a clear case of discrimination and glaring example of favouritism and being bad in law, is liable to be quashed. Further, this Court is of the view that though one Binod Jyotish was also not possessing the Resident Certificate in terms of the said resolution of the Committee, the same being dated 01.11.2013, only for the purpose that there was another candidate to compete with the Opposite Party No-8, falsely he was shown to be qualified for consideration of his case for the post of Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society. Hence, the selection of Opposite Party No.8 in terms of the decision of the proceeding of the Bhadra S.C.S. Ltd, so also his appointment as the Secretary of Opposite Party No.7-Society, as detailed above, being illegal and unjustified, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. 27. Needles to mention here that, it is open for the authority concerned to fill-up the post of Secretary of Opposite Party No.7-Society by making a fresh advertisement W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 49 of 50 clearly indicating therein the pre-conditions/criteria a candidate should possess as per the guidelines of the State, if any, so also prevalent rules as to issuance as well as validity of cast and resident certificate and take necessary steps in accordance with law. 28. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost. …….….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st day of October, 2023/Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 02-Nov-2023 16:50:26 W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016 Page 50 of 50