The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29500 of 2023 Shibasis Mahala …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC Ms. R. Sahu, Adv. for O.P.5 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 14.08.2024 Order No. 09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- the “1. Quash impugned order of appointment dtd.29.08.2023 under annexure-4 so far appointment of the opposite party No.5/Roshni Sahu to the post of mobility teacher is concerned, she being secured 2nd position in the merit list ignoring the case of the petitioner who secured 1st position in the merit list. 2. Direct order that the petitioner shall be appointed as mobility teacher pursuant to the advertisement under annexure-1 w.e.f. 29.08.2023 the date of appointment of other teachers with all consequential service and monetary benefits”. 4. It is contended that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the B.D.O.-cum-Secretary, RSD, Saintala, Balangir on 10.01.2023 under Annexure-1 inviting application to fill up different posts on contractual basis, // 2 // Petitioner made his application as against the post of Mobility Teacher in School for Visually Impaired, RSD, Saintala. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner’s application was not only entertained but also in the proceeding of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 23.03.2023 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was shown to have secured 140.36 mark in total. 4.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner secured more mark than Opposite Party No.5, who had secured 139.31 mark, but Opposite Party No.5 was provided with the appointment ignoring the claim of the Petitioner. Subsequently, vide another notice issued on 28.03.2023 under Annexure-3, Petitioner’s name was reflected in the reject list vide Sl. No.38. In the said reject list so enclosed to Annexure-3, Petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that Petitioner has completed the course after the due date. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contented that Petitioner had in fact completed the course in question result of which was published on 25.12.2022 vide Annexure-5. The course in question successfully completed is the 2 years Diploma in Education Special Education (Visual Impairment). Page 2 of 6 // 3 //
Legal Reasoning
4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, Petitioner since had not the valid RCI Registration Certificate, along with his application, provided the acknowledgment issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India so enclosed to the Addl. Affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner. 4.5. It is contended that since Petitioner had successfully completed the course prior to the cut-off date i.e. on 01.02.2023, and along with his application, he submitted the acknowledgment showing the application made for his Registration before the Rehabilitation Council of India, the ground on which his candidature was rejected so reflected in the proceeding of the meeting dtd.25.07.2023 under Annexure-E/3 to the counter, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner had completed the course prior to the cut-off date and his application to get the Registration was also made on 14.01.2023 i.e. prior to the cut-off date, Petitioner’s candidature could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in Annexure-E/3. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that such rejection of the Petitioner’s candidature be set aside with a direction on the Opposite Parties to provide him appointment. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 5. Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4. Though it is not disputed that in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process, but placing reliance on the stipulation contained in the advertisement, Petitioner along with his application never submitted the valid RCI Registration Certificate as on the date of making the application i.e. on 01.02.2023. Since Petitioner had not the valid RCI Registration Certificate as on the last date of making application, his application though was initially entertained and he secured more mark than Opposite Party No.5, but on that ground his candidature was rejected, while providing appointment to Opposite Party No.5. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the advertisement, Petitioner was not having the valid RCI Registration Certificate as on 01.02.2023, which is also not disputed, Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected though on a different ground. 6. Ms. S. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 on the other hand contended that since Petitioner was not having the valid RCI Registration Certificate and after rejection of his candidature she was the next candidate having secured 139.31 mark, she was Page 4 of 6 // 5 // rightly selected and appointed and she is continuing as against the said post after being provided with the appointment. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to Annexure-1, Petitioner and Opposite Party No.5 made their applications as against the post of Mobility Teacher. As found from Annexure-1 along with the application, a candidate was required to submit the valid RCI Registration Certificate and the last date of making the application was 01.02.2023. As found from the record, Petitioner though acquired the course in question and the result was published on 25.12.2022 under Annexure-5, but on the last date of making the application, he was not having the valid Registration Certificate. But while accepting the acknowledgment so produced by the Petitioner in support of his making the application for registration, he was allowed to take part in the selection process. But it is found that the ground on which the candidature of the Petitioner was rejected vide Annexure-E/3 is not sustainable as Petitioner had the required qualification prior to the cut-off date having passed the course on 25.12.2022. 7.1. In view of such position, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s candidature was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. While Page 5 of 6 // 6 // holding so, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment, if there is any available vacancy at present and without disturbing the selection and appointment of Opposite Party No.5. Such a fresh decision as directed be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Aug-2024 18:09:33 Page 6 of 6