The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19096 of 2019 Yasodhara Mohanta …. Petitioner Mr. S.R. Pati, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr.T. Barik, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr.G.R. Sethi, Adv. for O.P.4 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 03.02.2025 Order No. 16. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to:- Admit this Writ Petition; And Issue of an appropriate Writ of like nature and Direction(s) or Order(s) to set aside the Notice No.966, dtd. 01.10.2019 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-6 to the extent of rejecting the application of the petitioner and consequential Notice No.958, dtd. 01.10.2019 issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-5 publishing the final result by the Opposite Party No.3 in respect of Home Science Subject; // 2 // And Pass such other Order(s), Direction(s), as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; And For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray”. 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-2 for the post of Lecturer in Non-Government Aided Colleges of the State, Petitioner made his application and he was issued with the admit card under Annexure-3-Series. 4.1. It is contended that in the provisional select list issued under Annexure-3-Series, Petitioner’s name was also reflected in the subject Home Science vide Roll No.BS1400021. 4.2. It is contended that subsequently Petitioner also appeared for verification of her document but in the impugned notice issued on 01.10.2019 under Annexure-6 her application has been rejected on the ground that Petitioner has not acquired the required qualification as per the advertisement.
Legal Reasoning
4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 as against the post, the following qualification was prescribed, which reads as follows:- Page 2 of 7 // 3 // “4. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: A candidate should possess a Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized University with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade with a second class in the Bachelor’s Degree. Provided that candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall possess a Master’s Degree in the concerned subject from a recognized University with at least 50% marks or its equivalent grade with a 2nd class in the Bachelors Degree”. 4.4. It is contended that in terms of the Clause-4 of the advertisement, Petitioner does have the required qualification and accordingly she was allowed to participate in the selection process till verification of documents was made. But on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required qualification, her application was rejected vide the impugned notice dtd.01.10.2019 under Annexure-6. 4.5. It is contended that since without giving any opportunity of hearing, Petitioner’s application was so rejected vide the impugned notice dtd.01.10.2019 under Annexure-6 and no opportunity was also given to file her objection to such rejection, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.6. It is also contended that challenging such rejection when Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition an interim order was passed directing the authorities to keep one post of Lecturer, Page 3 of 7 // 4 // Home Science vacant till the next listing. However, the said interim order was vacated by this Court vide order dtd.29.10.2024. 4.7. It is contended that since Petitioner without being given due opportunity of hearing, her candidature was rejected vide the impugned notice dated 01.10.2019 under Annexure-6, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.8. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opposite Party No.3 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 5. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party No.3 and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State contended that at the time of verification of documents when it was found that Petitioner does not have the required qualification her candidature has been rejected, but nothing has been indicated that while rejecting such application, Petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing to prove her claim that she does have the required qualification. 6. Even though Opposite Party No.4 being the selected candidate was impleaded as Opposite Party No.4, but no counter affidavit has been filed by the said Opposite Party as yet. Page 4 of 7 // 5 // 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-3 vide Advertisement No.003/2018 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in Non-Govt. Aided Colleges of Odisha, Petitioner made his application as a reserved category candidate with regard to the discipline Home Science. 7.1. As found after accepting the application so submitted the Petitioner, she was issued with the admit card under Annexure-3-Series and in the provisional select list published under the said Annexure, Petitioner’s roll number was reflected as against the discipline Home Science. As further found, pursuant to the notice on 13.06.2019 under Annexure-3 Series, Petitioner duly appeared for verification of her documents. But after such verification of the documents, application of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that Petitioner does not have the required qualification as reflected in the impugned notice dtd.01.10.2019 under Annexure-6. As found from the documents enclosed vide Annexure-1-Series, Petitioner has passed the M.A in Home Science in 1st Class in the examination held in the year 2011 by Sambalpur University. Petitioner has also Page 5 of 7 // 6 // qualified the NET. Since as per the advertisement the prescribed qualification is M.A in the particular subject with 55% mark or its equivalent and the same is 50% for reserved category candidates, this Court is of the view that prior to rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature or after such rejection vide Annexure-6, petitioner should have been given an opportunity to prove her credential. 7.2. Since in the instant case that has not been followed, this Court while quashing the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the ground indicated in the impugned notice dated 01.10.2019, dispose of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application before Opposite Party No.3 showing that she does have the required qualification in terms of the advertisement. It is observed that if any such application is filed within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opposite Party No.3 shall take a lawful decision on the same by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner within a further period of two (2) months. If on verification, it will be found that Petitioner does have the required qualification in terms of the advertisement and her candidature has been rejected wrongly, appropriate direction be issued in that regard within the aforesaid time period. While taking such a decision interim order passed on 04.10.2019 be taken into consideration, even if that was vacated vide order dated 29.10.2024. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2025 12:02:59 Page 7 of 7