Petitioner sought enforcement of a previous 2015 Court order granting age relaxation for Sikhya Sahayak posts, arguing authorities could not deny consideration to him solely for not filing a separate writ petition, as the order intended to apply generally to eligible candidates. The court disposed of the petition after assuring scrutiny.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P. (C) No.14046 of 2015
6.8.2015 Heard.
The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the opposite p
arties to consider his candidature for engagement as Sikhya Sahayak as per the decision taken
by the authority in terms of the order dated 2.3.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23177
of 2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this Court vide order
dated 2.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.23177 of 2014 has directed the authorities to grant relaxa
tion in the upper age, in terms of the said direction, the Government has taken decision that
part of the decision has been quoted at para-15 of the writ petition which is being reproduced
herein below:-
Keeping the mandate of RTE in view and taking the vacancies into consideration the Com
mittee decided that the Department will have no objection if the candidates beyond the upper a
ge limit i.e., up to 42 years, for general candidates with 5 years age relaxation for SC/ST/OB
C/SEBC/Women/Ex-Serviceman and 10 years age relaxation as per Order No.20199 dated 24.08.2013
of School and Mass Education Department are allowed by Honble High Court for consideration for
their engagement as per merit only who are otherwise eligible. But this will be one time and
only based on Court order. It cannot be considered as precedent.
The case of the petitioner is that he is also one of such candidates who has made onli
ne application on 29.09.2014 bearing application No.B-200279 which was
before the cutoff date i.e., before 30.09.2014. But the case of the petitioner is not being co
nsidered in the light of the decision of the authorities dated 5.5.2015 (Annexure-4) whereby a
nd hereunder the Additional Director (General) has directed to all District Project Coordinato
r, RTE-SSA, Odisha to consider candidature of those applicants regarding relaxation in age who
have approached this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted merely because he has not a
pproached this Court, the petitioner cannot be deprived from consideration of his candidature.
It is very surprising, when the authorities have taken decision regarding granting rel
axation in age in terms of the order passed by this Court wherein this Court in W.P.(C) No.231
77 of 2014, then it is not required for each and every candidate to approach separately for co
nsideration.
The authorities like Additional Director (General) is supposed to follow the decision
of the Committee who has taken a decision on 20.04.2015 but in complete defiance from the said
decision, authorities have communicated with the decision vide communication dated 5.5.2015 w
hich cannot be said to be proper and is certainly in the teeth of the decision of the Committe
e.
Learned counsel for the School and Mass Education Department has submitted that the ca
se of the petitioner will be scrutinized and if at all the petitioner has
submitted his online application prior to the cutoff date as has been submitted by the petitio
ner by way of filing additional affidavit, case of the petitioner will also be considered.
Engagement of the petitioner certainly will depend upon if the petitioner is found to
be otherwise eligible.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
S. N. Prasad, J.
2
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant's candidature for engagement as Sikhya Sahayak should be considered despite not filing a separate application before this Court.
Whether the authority's decision to follow a Court order granting age relaxation applies to all eligible candidates without individual litigation.
Petitioner
School and Mass Education Department
S. N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court