The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OA) NO.956 of 2019 Sabita Khatua …. Petitioner Mr. S.C. Sahu, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC Mr. D.Sundar Ray, Adv.(for Opp. Party No.4) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 03.05.2023 Order No 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned A.S.C and M.. D. Sundar Ray, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.4. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the rejection of her candidature for the post of Contractual Teacher in Sanskrit vide Annexure-6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the advertisement issued by the Opp. party No.2 on 05.09.2018 under Annexure-3, the Petitioner made his application as against the post of Contractual Teacher in Sanskrit. It is contended that as provided in the said advertisement under Clause-IX, the following documents were to be attached along with the application form. // 2 // IX. Documents to be attached to the application form. (a ) Self attested Xerox copy of certificates showing academic qualification upto minimum qualification required with marks along with HSC Certificate. (b) Self attested Xerox copy of the caste certificate of issued SC/ST/SEBC/OBC candidate) Tahasildar case the by (in (c) Self attested Xerox copy of valid employment registration card. (d ) self attested Xerox copy of PWD Certificate (e) Self attested photograph to be affixed in the Application Form. recent passport size colour (f ) A Bank Draft of Rs.200/-(Rupees Two Hundred) only (Non refundable) payable in favour of District Welfare Officer, Balasore must be furnished by the candidate other than ST/SC/PH candidates along with application form. Applications without required fees will be outright rejected. 3.1. It is contended that the Petitioner complying with the said requirement made his application and the same was also entertained by the Opp. party No.1. But on the ground that the Petitioner has not submitted the residence certificate, her candidature was rejected vide Annexure-6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that no such stipulation was there in the advertisement to enclose the copy of the residence certificate along with the application form. Accordingly, he contended that the rejection of her application on the ground that she has not submitted the residence certificate is not sustainable in the eye of law. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel further contended that the petitioner though has secured 211.16% of mark, but Page 2 of 5 // 3 // persons securing less percentage as like Opp. party NO.4 were selected and appointed. 4. Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned ASC on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. party Nos.2 & 3. It is contended that subsequent to the issuance of the advertisement under Annexure-3 a corrigendum was issued by the Opp. party No.2 on 24.02.2018. In the said corrigendum, a stipulation was made that along with the application, a candidate has to enclose the residence certification. Since in terms of the corrigendum, the Petitioner never submitted the Residence Certificate while making the application, her candidature was rightly rejected as per Annexure-6. 5. To the aforesaid submission of Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, Mr. S.C Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the stipulation contained in the corrigendum dt.24.09.2018. It is contended that as provided under Clause-2, such candidates who are claiming for any preference have to provide the Residence Certificate along with their application form showing that they are permanent residents of Balasore district. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner does not pray for any preference with regard to her appointment, the petitioner was not required to enclose the Residence Certificate. The stipulation contained in Clause-2 of the corrigendum dt.24.09.2018 is reproduced hereunder. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 2. Photocopy of Residence Certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildars of Balasore district must be attached for the candidates who are claiming the preference. for It is accordingly contended by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel that the ground of rejection of the application so indicated in Annexure-6 is liable for interference of this Court with passing of an appropriate order. 6. Mr. D. Sundar Ray, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.4 on the other hand contended that the Opp. Party No.4 on being found eligible was appointed vide order dt.08.03.2019 and the Opp. Party No.4 has no fault with regard to her selection and appointment. She has in the meantime rendered more than 4 (four) years of service and will be seriously prejudiced, if she will be disengaged. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that in terms of the advertisement issued on 05.09.2018 under Annexure-3, the Petitioner made his application for the post of Contractual Teacher in Sanskrit. As provided under Clause-IX of the advertisement, the Petitioner submitted all the documents along with her application and as provided in the said clause, no Residence Certificate was required to be produced along with the application. Even though in the corrigendum issued by Opp. party No.2 on 24.09.2018, stipulation was made with regard to submission of the Residence Certificate, but the said Page 4 of 5 // 5 // certificate was required to be produced by such candidate who claims any preference for appointment. 7.1. Since the Petitioner does not claim for any preference , this Court is of the view that no Residence Certificate was required to be produced by the Petitioner along with her application. The rejection of the Petitioner’s application on the ground that she has not produced the Residence Certificate is not just and proper. While holding so, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application and on such consideration, if it is found that the Petitioner has secured more mark than Opp. Party No.4, then consequential action be taken for providing appointment to the petitioner as Contractual Teacher in Sanskrit. Such exercise shall be undertaken and completed by Opp. party No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
Decision
Writ Petition is disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: eMudhra.App.Views.PartialControls.SigningModeTab.SigningTabVie wModel Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-May-2023 17:12:34 Page 5 of 5