The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.34791 of 2023 Pranati Toppo …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Satapathy, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 2) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 09.01.2024 Order No 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for records, after hearing the parties issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ/directions, direct the Opp. Party-Odisha Public Service Commission to include the petitioner in the final selection list for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Odia) Science stream pursuant to the advertisement No. 12/2020- 21 and appoint the petitioner for the said post. And this Hon'ble Court further be pleased to quash the part of the revised list dated 10.10.2023 under Annexure- // 2 // 1 to the extent inclusion of Opp. Party No.4 in the revised list, as the Opp. Party No.4 was included in the list by excluding the petitioner from the final list dated 09.10.2023. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that even though in the final select list published by the Commission on 09.10.2023 under Annexure-2 name of the Petitioner was at Sl. No. 27. But ignoring her claim the impugned select list was published on the very next day on 10.10.2023 under Annexure-1, wherein the name of the Petitioner was not reflected. Petitioner being aggrieved by such omission of his name in the impugned select list has approached this Court in the present writ petition. This Court while issuing notice of the matter on 03.11.2023, passed an interim order directing the Commission to keep reserve one post in respect of ST (Women) Category. 4.1. It is contended that since in the final select list published under Annexure-2 Petitioner’s name was at Sl. No. 27, there was no occasion on the part of the Commission to exclude her name while issuing a subsequent notice on 10.10.2023 under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that such action of the Commission is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Commission on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so field by the Commission. It is contended that even though name of the Petitioner was initially reflected in the select list published on 09.10.2023 under Annexure-2, as against Sl. No. 27 in ST (Women) category, but subsequently it was found that one candidate namely Archana Raika while making her application as against ST Category, she wrongly mentioned her gender as Male in the application form. Accordingly, her candidature was Page 2 of 4 // 3 // considered as against ST (Male) Category and she was placed at Sl. No. 25 of the select list published on 09.10.2023. In order to rectify the mistake, the Commission decided to revise the final select list published on 09.10.2023 under Annexure-2. While revising the select list, Petitioners’ name was not reflected because of her lower position. Stand taken by the Commission in Para 7, 8 & 9 are reproduced hereunder:- “7. That, it is humbly submitted that after the publication of the result on dt.09.10.2023, it came to the notice of the Commission that one ST category candidate namely Archana Raika bearing Roll No. 500029, has been recommended at Sl. No. 25 of the final select list dt.09.10.2023, as she has wrongly submitted her Gender as Male in the online application form instead of Female and therefore she was wrongly recommended under ST (Male) category. 8. That, therefore in order to rectify the aforesaid mistake the Commission decided to revise the final select list notified on dt.09.10.2023 by correcting the Gender category of Archana Raika from S.T. (Male) to S.T. (Female) Category in order of merit vis-à-vis vacancy position vide office order No.7784/PSC, dt.10.10.2023. Accordingly, Archana Raika has been recommended at Sl. No.25 as ST (Female) category. By such modification, Rakesh Kumar Sing (ST-M), not recommended in the earlier Final Select List, found place in the revised select list at Sl. No.26 due to his higher marks and Nandita Ray (ST-F), recommended at Sl. No.26 in the earlier final select list, was also recommended at Sl. No.27 in the revised final select list published on dt.10.10.2023. Consequently, the petitioner's name although recommended in the earlier final select list could not find place within the revised final Select list published on dt.10.10.2023, due to her lower position in the select list. A copy of the order of the Commission dt.10.10.2023 REGISTRAR (JSE) annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/2. Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 9. That, for better appreciation of this Hon'ble Court, the marks obtained by all Six S.T. category candidates recommended in the revised final select list along with that of the petitioner's are as follows:- Roll No. Name CategoryGender Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 500107 Deenabandhu 500302 500493 Nayak Pradeep Kumar Gadaba Sunil Kumar Bariha Archana Raika Rakesh Kumar Sing 500275 Nandita Ray 500315 500354 500029 Pranati Toppo ST ST ST ST ST ST ST Mark Secured 105.353 Male Male 104.197 Male 100.651 Recommended Under ST ST ST Female 97.590 ST(w) Male 87.434 ST Female 82.354 Female 74.566 ST(w) Not Recommended 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the stand taken by the Commission in Para 7 to 9 of the counter affidavit and fairly contended that the revised select list under Annexure-1 has rightly been published. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the stand taken by the Commission in Para 7 to 9 of the counter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with regard to exclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the revised merit list published on 10.10.2023 under Annexure-1 and accordingly, is not inclined to interfere with the same.
Decision
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Jan-2024 11:48:52 Sneha (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 4 of 4