The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37257 of 2023 Ashish Kumar Panigrahi … Petitioner Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite parties Mr. S. Behera, AGA CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 20.06.2025 Order No. 11. 1. Heard Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State. Instant writ petition 2. the petitioner challenging the impugned decision vide order dated 29th filed by is September, 2023 as at Annexure-11 and to quash the order dated 12th October, 2009 of opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-7 and to direct the opposite parties to declare him to be entitled to selection to the post of Constable as a Home Guard candidate under the UR category from the date of initial appointment as per the select list i.e. Annexure-4 and to release all consequential and service benefits in his favour on the grounds stated therein. 3. In response to the advertisement as per Annexure-2, the petitioner submitted his application in respect of the vacancy to the post of Constable in the district of Sambalpur and ultimately, Page 1 of 4 select list at Annexure-4 dated 22nd December, 2006 was prepared. As per the advertisement, for the district of Sambalpur, 110 posts of Constables with break up reservation to the respective categories were made available for the recruitment. 4. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the advertisement, 10% of the total posts have been reserved for the Home Guards working at least for a period of three years uninterruptedly. A copy of the advertisement dated 23rd October, 2006 is at Annexure-2. The further submission is that as per the select list i.e. Annexure-4, one women candidate of Home Guard with two men for UR category have been selected. The contention is that the number of vacancies for UR category stood enhanced to 56 as per the redrawn select list i.e. Annexure-12 to the rejoinder affidavit and, therefore, in such view of the matter, the selection of Home Guards to the post of Constable with the vacancies at the rate of 10% stands at six and, hence, the petitioner should have been appointed being a candidate of UR category, but the same has been declined in view of impugned decision by order at Annexure-11 dated 30th September, 2023. 5. Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, justifies the impugned decision as per Annexure-11 referring to the counter affidavit that UR candidate of Home Guards for men stands at two and women at one with total vacancy position at three and since, the petitioner was not found in the select list and therefore, he has not been selected to the post of Constable. The contention is that the petitioner does not come within the number of posts selected for Home Guards, Page 2 of 4 hence, rightly the decision was taken and it was followed by Annexure-11. 6. In course of hearing, Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the redrawn select list has reached its finality and the same is not in dispute. 7. In fact, pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, the decision was taken as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Pursuant to order of the State Administrative Tribunal, the representation was made leading to passing of the order as per Annexure-B to the counter and thereafter, it was challenged in W.P.(C) No.15253 of 2023 and subsequent thereto, impugned order dated 29th September, 2023 was passed. As it is stated and not disputed either, the redrawn select list stands confirmed and according to the same, the selection was shall have to be made. As far as the Resolution of the State Government in Home Department dated 7th October, 2006 is concerned and in view of Clause 8(3) of the Orissa Police Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Constables) Order, 2006 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Order, 2006’), it is stipulated therein that reservation shall be 10% of the notified vacancies in the rank of Constable in each district to be earmarked for the Home Guards in each recruitment year and shall be eligible against the reserved vacancies under the respective category to which they belong i.e. UR, S.E.B.C, SC and ST. In the case at hand, the petitioner belongs to UR category and since, the redrawn select list is in respect of 56 vacancies (38 men + 18 women), in view of Clause 8(3) of the Order, 2006, this Court is of the humble view that the vacancies for the Home Guards becomes six Page 3 of 4 instead of three. As it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit, two men in the UR category have been appointed besides one woman in the said category, which means, three more posts are to be filled up from the UR category from the district of Sambalpur in view of Clause 8(3) of the Order, 2006. In other words, as per the redrawn select list, the vacancy position stands at six and since only three (2 men + 1 woman) have been appointed, the case of the petitioner as UR category being a Home Guard should have been duly considered and therefore, the conclusion is that the impugned decision dated 29th September, 2023 at Annexure-11 in not considering the case of the petitioner to be appointed as a Constable in Sambalpur district is unjustified and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a logical sequitur, the impugned decision dated 29th September, 2023 at Annexure-11 is hereby set aside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable from UR category of Home Guard for the district of Sambalpur and to issue notification accordingly at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is further directed that upon such appointment as Constable, notional benefits shall only be allowed in favour of the petitioner. 9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Alok Date: 24-Jun-2025 11:34:05 (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 4 of 4