Disposed

Smt.Smaranika Ray v. Collector,Cuttack

Orissa HC12 Nov 2018WP(C)/5417/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment order as Sikhya Sahayak. Court noted respondents confirmed petitioner was already engaged and appointed as of 09.04.2012, having joined service on 10.04.2012. Relief was held granted, rendering writ infructuous; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as infructuous since petitioner was already appointed and had joined service.

Smt.Smaranika Ray Vs Collector,Cuttack — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 5417 of 2012

¶2

12.11.2018

¶3

Due to cease work call given by Orissa High Court Bar Association, none appears for the parties. Perused the record.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to issue appointment order in her favour as Sikhya Sahayak of Banki Education District as per her placement in the select list within a stipulated time.

¶5

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Collector, Cuttack on 21.01.2011 to fill up Sikhya Sahayak of different education district of Cuttack Revenue District. As per the said advertisement, 27 posts were advertised for candidature having B.Sc. qualification for Banki Education District. But, due to shortage of trained science graduate, the advertisement was issued for appointment of science graduate only. The petitioner having passed B.Sc. with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and belongs to SEBC category and after married residing in Cuttack in her in-laws house applied for the said post for Banki Education District. After verification of certificates, a select list was prepared by opposite party nos.1 and 2 on the basis of marks secured in different examination. The petitioner was empanelled in the select list at serial no.17 which is the vacancy position. As per the

¶6

¶7

reservation policy from out of 27 posts, 3 posts should be reserved for SEBC candidates, thereby the petitioner has got every possibility to get an engagement against the vacancies advertised for science graduate. Even the petitioner called to produce all the original certificates of her educational qualification and other testimonials and after verification an agreement was executed by opposite party no.2 for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak, but no engagement order/appointment was issued in her favour till date. Hence this application.

¶8

Pursuant to notice issued on 28.03.2012, opposite party nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner has already been engaged/appointed as Sikhya Sahayak as per order dated 09.04.2012 of opposite party no.1 by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Cuttack and also she has signed the agreement dated 03.03.2012 and thereafter also she joined as Sikhya Sahayak in Manipur Primary School on 10.04.2012.

¶9

In such view of the matter, since the relief sought having been granted, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶11

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶12

Ashok

¶13

Smt.Smaranika Ray v. Collector,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Smaranika Ray v. Collector,Cuttack

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

Sudhakar Rout Vs State of Orissa

Suvendu Singh Vs State of Odisha

Ariganjan B Ehera Vs State and Ors.

Monalisha Sarangi Vs State of Orissa

Nibedita Pradhan Vs State and Ors.

Dhanurjaya Padal Vs State and Ors.