Dismissed¶32

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Feb 2024WA/2863/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court writ appeal dismissed; upper age limit relaxation refused; contractual Trained Graduate Teacher recruitment, advertisement dated 13.08.2021, 2016 vacancy year; sealed cover result; cut-off marks on merit list versus qualifying marks; no inferior-merit candidate appointed; Single Judge order in W.P.(C) No.27851 of 2021 upheld; appellant appeared in person; Department of School and Mass Education; no interference with impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The appellant's contention that, having scored more than the qualifying marks, he ought to have been selected for appointment was rejected as totally meritless. ¶25-26

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.2863 of 2023

¶3

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo …. Appellant In person

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and another …. Respondents

¶6

Mr. R. N. Mishra, Additional Government Advocate

¶7

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE D. DASH

¶8

Order No.

¶9

¶10

ORDER
15.02.2024
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶11

Heard the appellant, who has appeared in person and Mr. R. N.

¶12

Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the StateRespondents.

¶13

An order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

¶14

W.P.(C) No.27851 of 2021 is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶15

The facts, which are not in dispute, are that there was an

¶16

advertisement issued by respondent No.2 on 13.08.2021 for recruitment to the post of contractual Trained Graduate Teachers in Government Secondary Schools of State of Odisha. The appellant did not fulfill the upper age limit criteria of 32 years. He claimed

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

relaxation of the upper age limit in terms of the said advertisement.

¶19

He sought for a direction in the writ proceeding to the State-

¶20

respondents to relax the age criteria, the vacancies so advertised being of the year 2016. The appellant was allowed to submit his application, pursuant to an order passed in the writ proceeding by the writ Court with a further direction to the Department of School

¶21

and Mass Education to produce the appellant’s result in a sealed

¶22

cover. In the writ proceeding, the State submitted the appellant’s score in a sealed cover, which was much less than the cut-off marks

¶23

fixed by the authorities.

¶24

Taking into account the fact that the appellant had scored much less than the cut-off marks worked out on the basis of merit list, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order which is under challenge in the present appeal. The appellant, who has

¶25

appeared in-person, has attempted to convince this Court that since marks scored by him was more than the qualifying marks, he ought

¶26

to have been selected for appointment. The contention is totally meritless.

¶27

We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed

¶28

by the learned Single Judge. It is not the appellant’s case that any

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

person of inferior merit has been selected and appointed pursuant to

¶31

the said advertisement.

¶32

The impugned order calls for no interference. This appeal stands

¶33

dismissed accordingly.

¶34

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

Chief Justice

M. Panda

(D. Dash)
Judge

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Page 3 of 3

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 19-Feb-2024 18:50:48

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Sai Om Agency, Koraput Vs State of Odisha