The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22495 of 2016 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Nilima Mohanty … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Banshidhar Satapathy, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA 25.4.2025. JUDGMENT Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer; W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2016 Page 1 of 7 in “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the humble petitioner fervently prays this Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call of relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties, issue a writ the nature of mandamus commanding Opp.Parties, particularly to the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, issue Zillaparishad, engagement order the Petitioner engaging her as Sikshya Sahayak in terms of the decision of this Hon’ble Court rendered in the case of Chandramani Jena and others vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2007(II) OLR 577 within a stipulated date.” to favour of Khurda in
Legal Reasoning
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, having B.A. qualification and being C.T. trained, applied for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 2006. Her name found place in the merit list drawn up by the authorities. Though engagement orders were issued in favour of some selected candidates, no such order was issued in favour of the petitioner mainly on the ground that having married to a person of Mahanga Block, she was no longer a resident of Tangi Block. The Petitioner’s claim was that despite marriage she was W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2016 Page 2 of 7 residing in her father’s house under Tangi Block. She had obtained resident certificate to such effect and had produced the same along with her application. In the meantime, this Court, in the case of Chandramani Jena and others vrs. State of Odisha and others; 2007 (II) OLR 577, held that no person could be deprived of getting employed on the ground of disqualification due to residence. The petitioner’s claim is that her case is squarely covered by the ratio decided in the aforementioned case. Further, she submitted multiple representations to the authorities but the same were not considered. On such facts, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the prayer as quoted above. 3. The stand of the State, as evident from its counter is that the Petitioner had applied for the post of Sikshya Sahayak for Tangi Block unit and had produced a residential certificate as proof of residence. Subsequently, complaints were received against the Petitioner and other candidates for having submitted fake residential certificates for which the District W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2016 Page 3 of 7 Selection Committee in its meeting held on 26.11.2006 decided to refer the residential certificates of all the candidates to the respective Tahasildars for verification. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the Tahasildar, Tangi, vide letter dated 6.2.2007, informed that the resident certificates of all the applicants along with the Petitioners had been reviewed under Rule 7 of Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 and cancelled as not genuine. As such, the application form of the Petitioner became incomplete and she became ineligible for which her candidature was cancelled vide Notification dated 16.4.2007. 4. As regards Chandramani Jena’s case, it is stated that the Petitioner’s candidature was cancelled not because she belongs to any other Block but because of supply of fake residential certificate. In several similar cases filed by persons like the petitioner, this Court has refused to interfere. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. B. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2016 Page 4 of 7 6. Mr. Satpathy would argue that the resident certificate of the Petitioner was never cancelled to her knowledge as no show cause notice was ever issued to her. Even otherwise, the fact of residence of a candidate is no longer relevant in view of the ratio decided in Chandramani Jena (supra). The Petitioner was duly selected and placed at Sl. No.110 in the Select List in respect of Tangi block. Despite marriage to a person of Mahanga Block, she has been residing in her parents’ house in Tangi Block. 7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, would submit that the Petitioner has come up with a stale claim inasmuch as her candidature was cancelled way back in the year 2007. Moreover, such cancellation was not because she did not belong to Tangi block but because she had submitted three fake residential certificates. She never challenged the cancellation of the candidature at the relevant time and acted only after the judgment passed in Chandramani Jena’s case, for which she is nothing but a fence-sitter and hence, not entitled to any relief. W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2016 Page 5 of 7 8. The facts are not disputed. The fact of cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature has also not been specifically disputed. Such cancellation, for whatever reason, was effected way back in the year
Decision
2007. There is not a whisper in the Writ Petition as to why the petitioner remained silent for all these years. 9. Coming to the grounds cited by the State, it is trite law that submission of fake residential certificate amounts to playing fraud, which can never be countenanced in law. The decision to cancel the residential certificate of the Petitioner, per se, has not been challenged. As it appears the Petitioner after remaining silent for all these years, suddenly woke up from her slumber upon passing of the judgment in Chandramani Jena (supra) on 8.1.2015. Be it noted that the Writ Petition was filed on 20.12.2016. It is obvious that the Petitioner wants to take the benefit of the case of Chandramani Jena, but for the reasons indicated above, her candidature not having been rejected on the ground of disqualification due to residence, the ratio of Chandramani Jena has no W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2016 Page 6 of 7 application. Moreover, there is considerable force in the submission of the State counsel that the petitioner is nothing but a fence-sitter and hence, not entitled to any relief. 10. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition, which is therefore dismissed. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Apr-2025 11:57:32 W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2016 Page 7 of 7