The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.945 of 2015 Sanjay Kumar Sethy …. Petitioner Mr. A. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.12.2023 Order No 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. A. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under this circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Original Application may be allowed; and a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order of rejection dated 03.02.2015, & 20.8.2014, Advertisement dated 05.06.2013, and the consequential selection process and the select list dated 04.09.2013 & the consequential appointment if any made during pendency of the Original Application. b) Necessary direction may be made to the respondents to direct the Respondents to prepare the select list afresh and issue appointment order in favour of the applicant. c) Pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deem fit and proper be issued.” // 2 // 4. It is contended that pursuant to the selection process initiated by the Opp. Party No. 3 on 05.06.2013 under Annexure-2, Petitioner participated in the selection process. But it is contended that as against the vacancies meant for Home Guard when the Petitioner was not selected or appointed, the present writ petition was filed. 5. In the counter filed by the State since it was indicated that the Petitioner has not qualified as against 10% vacancy meant for Home Guard candidates and accordingly he was not selected, while filing a rejoinder affidavit, a stand was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that that similarly situated applicants, who faced the selection process in terms of Annexure-2, though have secured less mark than the present Petitioner, but they were provided with the appointment. Basing on such stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit, this Court passed an order to the following effect on 27.09.2023:- in “In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Petitioner is not selected on the ground that the written the Petitioner has secured “10” mark examination. But while showing Annexure-9, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that persons who have secured less than 10 marks have been appointed as against Home Guard Vacancies. It is accordingly contended since persons who have secured less mark than the petitioner have been appointed as against the 10% Home Guard Quota , Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of appointment. 4. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate prays for some time to obtain instruction on Annexure-9. As requested by Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned AGA, 5. list this matter on 13.10.2023.” Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court an affidavit was filed by the Opp. Party No. 5. In the said affidavit the following stand has been taken in Para 5:- “That it is humbly submitted that Annexure-9 is the document of Written Test of Jagatsinghpur and Commissionerate Police Cuttack-Bhubaneswar which is quietly different from Signals Establishment. Signals Establishment is a Technical department of Odisha Police. Its Recruitment Rule is purely different from other Establishment. Accordingly the advertisement was published on 5th June- 2013 at Annexure-2 to the writ petition under the heading of Radio Telephony Constable/ Constable and Wireless Telegraphy Constable and the terms and conditions stipulated made therein. As per advertisement both the physical and written test was over, the select list of meritorious candidates was published under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. But as per the claim of the petitioner at Annexure-9 of the rejoinder that the candidates who were secured less marks than the petitioner have been selected as constable at Commissionerate of Police. Cuttack and Bhubaneswar-2013 is totally false and fabricated. Since the comparative statement of written test marks relating to recruitment of constable of Jagatsinghpur district and Commissionerate of Police. Cuttack and Bhubaneswar not related to the advertisement under Annexure-2 and more particularly the candidates of Annexure- 9 to the rejoinder were never appeared in the recruitment test under Annexure- 2. Therefore, the petitioner try to mislead the Hon'ble Court by producing the result sheet of Commissionerate of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar-2013. It is humbly submitted that so far as Annexure-9 to the rejoinder is concerned it is revealed that the candidates who have been selected is different from the advertisement of Jagatsinghpur district/ Commissionerate Cuttack-Bhubaneswar. Further, the Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Homegaurds who have secured less than 10 marks in Jagatsinghpur District/ Commissionerate Cuttack- Bhubaneswar have not appeared the written test conducted for R.T.C in pursuant to advertisement dated.05.06.2013 in Signals Establishment. As per proceedings of the Selection Board for Recruitment of Radio Telephony Constable/ Constable Wireless Telegraphy (W.T) in Odisha Police Signals Establishment, the minimum qualifying mark for SC/ST category candidate is 12 out of full mark 35. As Sri Sanjay Kumar Sethi (SC) had secured 10 marks which is quite below than 12, his candidature in the selection list did not find place. For better appreciation copy of proceeding of the Selection Board for recruitment of Radio Telephony Constable is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/5.” 7. Basing on the stand taken in the affidavit, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the persons who were selected and appointed in Jagatsinghpur District basing on Annexure-9 never faced the selection in terms of Annexure-2. Accordingly, it is contended that persons, who were appointed basing on Annexure-9 was with respect to an advertisement issued by the Commissionerate of Police and not by facing the selection pursuant to Annexure-2. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner when was allowed to file his objection to the affidavit, an objection was filed in Court today. The same be kept in record. In the objection nothing has been indicated that persons who were appointed in Jagatsinghpur District basing on Annexure-9, were so appointed after facing the recruitment process in terms of Annexure-2. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and in view of the fact that the Petitioner pursuant to Annxure-2 has not secured the required mark for his appointment as against Home Guard quota, this Court is of the view that the prayer as made in the writ petition cannot be entertained. The plea raised by the Petitioner that candidates securing less mark than the Petitioner were appointed in Jagatsingpur District is also not tenable as those candidates never participated in the selection process basing on Annexure-2.
Decision
10. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Dec-2023 12:11:55 Page 5 of 5