Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar Das v. State

Orissa HC4 Aug 2015WP(C)/13405/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenged the disengagement order from a primary school on grounds of low marks. The court examined the recast merit list and the respondent's counter affidavit, which showed the petitioner scored significantly lower than the lowest selected candidate in their category, even considering disability reservations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merit.

The grievance of the petitioner is for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to quash Annexure-1 dated 12.10.2007 by which the petitioner has been disengaged from Shikshya Sahayak in Godhamaridwar Primary School of Khandapara Block on the ground that she s ecured less percentage of marks.

Counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that on the basis of recastin g of the merit list, it has been assessed that the petitioner has secured less marks than othe r candidates. To that effect statement has been made at paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit w hich is being reproduced herein below:-

That it is pertinent to state here that the petitioner was awarded 38.93% mark s, in +3 degree & 44.33% marks in +2. In Schedule Caste reservation category under +3 the lowe st selectee has secured 50.28% of marks whereas the petitioner has secured 38.93% marks. Simil arly in Schedule Caste reservation category under +2 the lowest selectee has secured 49.78% ma rks whereas the petitioner has secured 44.33% marks. Even when his disability is taken into co nsideration in +3 (B.Ed.) category, the person who has been selected under PH-OH category has a trained one

and secured 89.86% marks whereas the petitioner being untrained one has secured 38.93% marks. Similarly in +2 (CT) category the person selected under PH-OH category a trained one a nd has secured 77.90% of marks whereas the petitioner being untrained one has secured 44.33% o f marks. Therefore, on having perusal revised merit list is reveals that the selection of the petitioner has not as per merit for which his engagement was found incorrect & illegal, result ing in issuance of dis-engagement order vide impugned order. Similarly, some other applicants were also disengaged like the petitioner at that time.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the othe r candidates in his category hence I find no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

Mukesh Kumar Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Languli Mallick Vs Collector,Cuttack

Subhasmita Samal Vs Collector,Dhenkanal

Baijayanti Pradhan Vs Adm,Ganjam

Kailash Ch.Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Somanath Panda Vs State

Harshamani Dash Vs Secy,Scl and Mass Edu