Disposed

Kailash Ch.Sethi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Aug 2015WP(C)/13512/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court impleaded the Collector, Ganjam, and directed the authorities to allow the petitioner representations regarding the exclusion of B.Ed. marks from the final merit list for Sikhya Sahayak selection. The writ petition was disposed of after directing the Collector to decide within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to implead Collector as opposite party no.4; Collector directed to consider petitioner's representation regarding B.Ed. marks within four weeks.

Kailash Ch.Sethi Vs State of Odisha — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2015)

¶1

W.P. (C) No.13512 of 2015

¶2

4.8.2015 Heard.

¶3

 At the outset it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due
 to inadvertence and bona fide, the Collector, Ganjam has not been impleaded as a party and as
 such he has prayed to implead the Collector, Ganjam as the opposite party no.4.
 Considering the nature of prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, he is directed to i
mplead the Collector, Ganjam as the opposite party no.4 in course of the day.

¶4

 The grievance of the petitioner being a candidate for consideration of Sikhya Sahayak
on the basis of having all eligibility conditions including B.Ed. qualification, his name has
not appeared in the final merit list perhaps because of the reason the marks of the B.Ed degre
e has not been included for the purpose of final selection while the marks of the B.Ed. degree
 has been considered in all other previous stages.

¶5

 It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the marks of the B
.Ed. could have been included then certainly the petitioner could have been included in the fi
nal merit list.

¶6

 In that pretext Annexure-6 has been challenged which is the final merit list prepared
for the selection-cum-merit list for engagement of Sikhya Sahayak.

¶7

 Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has submitted that if the authority w
ill look into the matter and will calculate the B.Ed. marks of the petitioner there is a possi
bility that the petitioner will be included in the

¶8

final merit list as such the authorities may be directed to consider this aspect of the matter
.

¶9

 Learned counsel for the State has expressed no objection on such submission of learned
 counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be appropriate at th
is stage to direct the opposite party no.4- the Collector, Ganjam to look into the matter if t
he petitioner will make due representation before him within three weeks from the date of rece
ipt of certified copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition after calling for
 entire record and of course after verifying the education qualification of the petitioner and
 if it is so that the marks of B.Ed degree has not been included at the time of preparation of
 final merit list, certainly the Collector, Ganjam will consider this aspect of the matter and
 shall take decision within four weeks from the date of presentation of copy of this order.
 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

S. N. Prasad, J.

¶12

¶13

Kailash Ch.Sethi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Ch.Sethi v. State of Odisha

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

Somanath Panda Vs State

Mukesh Kumar Das Vs State

Harshamani Dash Vs Secy,Scl and Mass Edu