The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 3015 of 2023 Aparajita Mohanty State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. …. Appellant Respondents Advocates appeared in the case:- For Appellant For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19627 of 2016 filed by the appellant is under challenge in the present intra-Court appeal. By the said judgment, the petitioner‟s writ petition has been dismissed. 3. We have heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. M.K.Khuntia, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-Respondents and Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned Advocate for Respondent No.6. Page 1 of 5 4. It would be apposite to notice briefly, the foundational facts leading to filing of the writ petition. The controversy relates to appointment as a Jogan Sahayak in Telnadigam Grama Panchayat under Jharigam Panchayat Samiti. Pursuant to an advertisement for the said post, the appellant had applied. One of the conditions of the advertisement was that the candidate must be a permanent resident of the said Grama Panchayat. The appellant claims that she is the resident of Gudiapadar village in Telnadigam Grama Panchayat under Jharigam Panchayat Samiti. A merit list was prepared by the Selection Committee after scrutinizing the application forms of different candidates. Based on her qualification, the appellant was placed at the top of the merit list. The said merit list was prepared on 27.04.2016. Since the appellant was not given appointment letter whereas the others whose names figured in the selection list were appointed, she filed the said writ petition challenging the inaction of the concerned respondents in not appointing her. In the writ proceeding, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 disputing that the appellant was a resident of the village Gudiapadar and accordingly, she was not eligible for appointment to the said post in terms of the advertisement. It is noteworthy that the appellant had submitted a resident certificate issued by the competent authority in 2012. A specific plea was taken in the counter affidavit that despite opportunities granted to the appellant, she did not submit a recent residential certificate and that the said residential certificate issued in the year 2012 was valid for the said year only. A plea was also taken that the appellant was asked by Page 2 of 5 respondent No.5 through a letter dated 29.09.2016 asking her to produce a recent residential certificate by 02.10.2016. Subsequent attempts were made by serving a copy of the said communication requiring submission of a recent residential certificate of the appellant but the appellant failed to produce any such certificate. It further transpires that the Sarpanch of the Telnadigam Grama Panchayat of village Gudiapadar had given in writing that the appellant never stayed in the said village and the villagers of Gudiapadar had also stated so. Accordingly, since the appellant failed to submit a recent residential certificate, she was not appointed, though her name stood at the top of the merit list. Learned Single Judge after having noticed all these factual aspects, dismissed the writ petition with a conclusion that the appellant‟s resident certificate issued in 2012 could not be treated to be valid in 2016. Further, it was an admitted fact that the villagers and the Sarpanch of that village had specifically stated that the appellant had never stayed in village Gudiapadar because of which the appellant was asked to submit a recent residential certificate. 5. After having noticed these facts and submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the learned Singe Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the resident certificate was granted to the appellant on 23.07.2012 under Rule 3 of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 (in short „Rules of 1984‟) which did not Page 3 of 5 stipulate any period of its validity. He submits accordingly that once a resident/nativity certificate is issued under Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1984, the same should be treated to be valid forever. He has argued that only after framing of Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 2017, the period of validity of resident/nativity is one year, which provision has no application in the present selection process initiated in 2016. He accordingly, submits that the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application is unsustainable and requires interference. 7. We have perused Form-III of the Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984. Paragraph 2 of which reads as under: - “This certificate is being granted only for the purpose of ….” The resident/nativity certificate issued under the Rules of 1984 was, thus, required to be granted for a limited purpose. It is not the case of the appellant that the said certificate was granted in her favour in 2012 for the purpose of selection in question. In any case, the submission is that consequent upon issuance of the resident certificate, the appellant was to be treated to be resident of the said village for all times to come because there was no provision under the Rules of 1984 with reference to time after which the resident certificate was to be treated as valid. Status of residence of a person is a question of act. A dispute was raised by the Sarpanch and the villagers of Gudiapadar to the effect that the appellant had never resided in that village. In that background, she was asked to submit Page 4 of 5 a recent resident certificate by the Selection Committee. She failed to do so. 8. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has committed no error by rejecting the appellant‟s claim of being resident of village Gudiapadar for the purpose of appointment to the post of Jogan Sahayak. The appeal has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Judge (M.S. Raman) SK Jena/Secy. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-May-2024 12:47:11 Page 5 of 5
Arguments
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty Advocate Mr. M.K. Khuntia Addl. Govt. Advocate (State) Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate (R/6) CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN JUDGMENT 06.05.2024 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. A judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge