The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.3428 of 2015 Subhashree Das …. Petitioner Mr. N.C. Rout, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 7) Mr. P.K. Rout, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 8) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 29.09.2023 Order No 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. N.C. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State, Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 7 and Mr. P.K. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 8. None appeared for Opp. Party No. 6 in spite of appearance. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “(i) Direct/order that, the order of appointment as at Annexure-10 shall be quashed. // 2 // (ii) Direct/order that, the applicant shall be appointed in place of respondent and she should be provided with other financial and service benefits. (iii) Direct/order that, the in-eligible candidates should be terminated from the service and the eligible candidates should be appointed in their places. (iv) pass such other order as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the interest of justice.” 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-3 series on 29.04.2013 Petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of VLW. It is contended that not only Petitioner’s application was duly entertained but also in the provisional merit list issued under Annexure-4 series, the name of the Petitioner was duly reflected by showing him to have secured 73.40% of mark. It is contended that even though Private Opp. Party Nos. 5 to 8 have secured less mark than the Petitioner, but they were selected vide the impugned order under Annexure-10 ignoring the genuine claim of the Petitioner. It is contended that since the Petitioner admittedly had secured more mark than the Private Opp. Parties, the order of appointment issued in their favour under Annexure-10 needs to be interfered with by this Court with a direction on the Opp. Parties to provide appointment to the Petitioner. 5. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned ASC on the other hand contended that since by the time Petitioner made her application pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-3 series was not within the prescribed age, even though her application was entertained with publication of the provisional merit list under Annexure-4 series, but she was not selected. It is contended that Petitioner though had secured more mark than private Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 8, but they Page 2 of 5 // 3 // were selected vide order under Annexure-10 as they were within the age group so prescribed in the advertisement. However, it is admitted that Opp. Party No. 5 who was also below 21 years of age, was selected and appointed vide order under Annexure-10. Accordingly, it is contended that appropriate order be passed on the claim of the Petitioner. 6. Mr. Sethi as well as Mr. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Private Opp. Party Nos. 7 & 8 on the other hand contended that after facing due recruitment process they were provided with the appointment with issuance of the order of appointment in their favour vide order dtd.28.02.2014 under Annexure-10. Pursuant to the said order they not only joined but also continuing for more than 9 years and if at this stage they will be terminated, they will be seriously prejudiced. It is contended that since Private Opp. Parties have no fault with their selection and appointment, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 3414, Private Opp. Parties are eligible to continue as before. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 26 & 27 of above mentioned Judgment has held as follows:- “26. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent- State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in ser- vice should neither give Page 3 of 5 // 4 // any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 27. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation.” 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that even though the Petitioner by that time made her application for selection and appointment for the post of VLW pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-3 series does not come within the age group so prescribed in the said advertisement, but her application was not only entertained but also she was provisionally selected. In the provisional select list available at Annexure-4 and as admitted in the counter Petitioner has secured more mark than private Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 8. It is also found from the counter affidavit that Opp. Party No. 5 who is also not coming within the age group has been provided with the appointment vide order under Annexure-10. 7.1. In view of such admission made in the counter affidavit and taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 6 & 7 as well as placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that since benefit of appointment has been extended in favour of Opp. Party No. 5, who is not coming within the required age of 21 years, Petitioner since has secured more mark than Private Opp. Party Nos. 6 to 8, she is eligible and entitled Page 4 of 5 // 5 // to get the benefit of appointment. Therefore, without interfering with the selection and appointment of the Private Opp. Party Nos. 5 to 8, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to provide appointment to the Petitioner as a VLW as against any available vacancy. The entire exercise be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Oct-2023 17:06:15 Page 5 of 5