The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.39803 of 2023 Pujashree Samal State of Odisha & Ors. . -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. G.Sinha, Advocate …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. N.K.Praharaj, A.G.A CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 07.12.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State. Perused the Writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In view of the facts stated and submissions made above, the petitioner most humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions to quash the order of rejection dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure-10) passed by the Opp.Party No.2; And direct the Opp.Parties to select the petitioner as Jail Warder in Choudwar Circle, Cuttack under Home Guard category taking into the marks secured in the Computer based Recruitment examination) & Measurement of Physical Standards and Physical efficiency Test; Examination (written And consequently direct the Opp.Parties to appoint the petitioner as Jail Warder in Choudwar Circle, Cuttack under advertisement as Home Guard No.12024/2022/OPRB dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-4); category per the And direct the Opp.Parties to grant all financial consequential benefits from the date of appointment of other // 2 // candidate as per the advertisement No.12024/2022/OPRB dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-4); And may further be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper.” 4. Challenging rejection order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure- 10 thereby rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment of a Jail Warder on the ground that there was no vacancy either in SEBC category or UR category. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted SEBC candidate applied from the Home Guard category for appointment as a Jail Warder. Referring to the advertisement under Annexure-4 to the writ application learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far Cuttack circle Jail is concerned out of total 94 posts, 9 posts have been kept reserved under the Home Guard category. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the petitioner is discharging her duties as Home Guard her case could have been considered under the Home Guard category as provided under Annexure-4. 6. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the order in the case of Sudarshan Mohant V. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(OAC) No.1545 of 2018 decided by a coordinate bench, vide order dated 19.01.2023, submitted before this Court that while disposing of the said writ application the coordinate bench has been pleased to direct to consider the case of the petitioner by taking into account her candidature as a Home Guard candidate and not as SEBC candidate, which was wrongly done by the selection authority in the said writ application. In course of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that 8 posts are still lying vacant under the Home Guard category in the post of Jail Warder in Cuttack Circle. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner be // 3 // considered in the light of the order passed in Sudarshan Mohanta’s case within a stipulated period of time. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12809 of 2023 which was disposed by this Court on 26.04.2023 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the petitioner under unreserved Home Guard category which are lying vacant subject to the petitioner fulfilling all the eligible criteria. He further contended that pursuant to the aforesaid order the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the Opposite Parties and vide order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure-10 the authorities have rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that there was no vacancy of SEBC category and the petitioner did not qualified for appointment Home Guard & (UR) Category. In such view of the matter learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the writ application filed by petitioner is devoid of merit and accordingly same is to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful consideration to background facts and further keeping in view the order passed in the earlier writ application, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner has not been considered any perspective and in the light of order dated 06.04.2023. Moreover the ground of rejection taken in the case of the petitioner was also the ground in another case i.e. Sudarshan Mohanta’s case supra. The coordinate bench while considering the same has been pleased to quash the rejection order and directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh pursuant to order dated 19.01.2023 passed in W.P.(OAC) No.1545 of 2018. In such view of the matter this Court is of the considered view that the impugned rejection order does not specifically provide as to how the // 4 // petitioner is ineligible for being appointment under Home Guard UR category as directed by this Court in earlier writ application. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 01.09.2023 under Annexure-10, it found to be unsustainable law. Accordingly the same is set aside, further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh by taking into consideration order dated 19.01.2023 passed in Sudarshan Mohant’s case supra under Annexure-11 to the writ application. Let the petitioner approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with copy of order and copy of order dated 19.01.2023 Annexure-11 to the writ application within a period of three weeks from today. In such event the Opposite Party No.2 shall reconsider the case keeping in view the ratio in passed in Sudarshan Mohanta’s case and take a final decision in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. Any decision taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Dec-2023 10:59:08