Disposed

Saroj Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Aug 2024WP(C)/20114/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Junior Teacher (Schematic) selection: petitioner excluded from final merit list over differing mother's names in certificates and rejection of an affidavit lacking seal and date. Court permitted filing of a fresh objection and affidavit within seven days, to be considered sympathetically.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file fresh objection with fresh affidavit within 7 days; Opposite Party No.2 to consider sympathetically and decide within 2 weeks with intimation.

Saroj Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.20114 of 2024

¶3

Saroj Kumar Das

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

28.08.2024

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶14

2 . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶15

3 . Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

¶16

“Under these circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the final merit list under Annexure-10 for the District of Cuttack published by the Collector-cum-CEO Zilla Parishad Cuttack shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law;

¶17

If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the Rule be made absolute by quashing the final merit list under Annexure-10 for Cuttack District and further be pleased to direct the Opposite Party No.3 to include the petitioner’s name in the final merit list for the post of Junior Teacher (Schematic) Category-II (For classes 6 to 8)”.

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

4. It is contended that pursuant to the selection process initiated by Opposite Parties, Petitioner duly participated in the selection process as against the post of Junior Teacher (Science).

¶20

4.1 . It is contended that during verification of the documents, when it was brought to the notice of the Petitioner that the name of her mother has been described differently in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education and Council of Higher Secondary Education, Petitioner sworn an affidavit through his mother on 24.01.2024 under Annexure-6. In the said affidavit, Petitioner’s mother clearly stated that “Bebita Das” and “Sabita Pattanaik” are one and same person.

¶21

4.2 . It is contended that in the provisional rejection list published on 31.01.2024 under Annexure-7, Petitioner’s name when was reflected on the ground that his mother’s name appears differently in the HSC certificate and +2 certificate, Petitioner while complying the objection submitted the affidavit so sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur on 24.01.2024 under Annexure-6.

¶22

4.3 . It is contended that even though the said affidavit along with an application was submitted before the D.E.O.-cum-DPC, Samagra Shiksha, Cuttack on 02.02.2024 under Annexure-8 to the provisional reject list published under Annexure-7, but once again in the

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

provisional reject list published on 25.07.2024 under Annexure-9, Petitioner’s name has been reflected on selfsame ground and with a further ground that, the affidavit so produced by the Petitioner since does not bear the serial number and date of the concerned authority, it cannot be accepted.

¶26

4 . 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while complying the earlier rejection with filing of the objection on 02.02.2024 under Annexure-8, Petitioner provided the affidavit so sworn before the Executive Magistrate under Annexure-6. If the authority concerned found that the said affidavit does not bear the seal and date of the issuing authority, the same could have been brought to the notice of the Petitioner and thereby enabling him to rectify the defect. But instead of doing that Petitioner’s name was again reflected in the reject list so published on 25.07.2024 under Annexure-9.

¶27

4 . 5 . It is also contended that since Petitioner was prosecuting the matter before this Court, she could not file his objection within the stipulated time i.e. 02.08.2024. Because of non-filing of the objection to the provisional reject list published on 25.07.2024 under Annexure-9, in the final merit list published under Annexure-10, Petitioner’s name has not been reflected.

¶28

4 . 6 . It is accordingly contended that Petitioner be allowed to file an objection to the reject list published on

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

25.07.2024 under Annexure-9 before Opposite Party No.2 for consideration his claim to get the benefit of engagement, as Petitioner has been found eligible in all respect.

¶32

5 . Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State basing on the instruction so provided by Opposite Party No.3 vide his letter dtd.27.08.2024 contended that pursuant to the reject list issued on 31.01.2024 under Annexure-7, Petitioner though filed his objection by enclosing the affidavit sworn before the Executive Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, but the same was not accepted as the said affidavit does not bear the date and seal of the issuing authority.

¶33

5 . 1 . It is accordingly contended that since the affidavit filed along with the objection under Annexure-8 was not accepted by the verifying authority, Petitioner’s name was again reflected in the provisional reject list dtd.25.08.2024 under Annexure-9. Since Petitioner did not file any objection to the same within the time stipulated, final merit list was published on 05.08.2024 under Annexure-10 and because of non-filing of any objection Petitioner’s name has not been reflected in the final merit list.

¶34

6 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the nature of dispute involved, this Court is of the view that in terms of the earlier reject

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

// 5 //

¶37

list issued on 31.01.2024 under Annexure-7, Petitioner filed a detailed objection on 02.02.2024 along with the affidavit available under Annexure-6. If the said affidavit was found to be a defective one, Opposite Parties should have intimated to the said fact to the Petitioner, instead of showing his name again in the reject list published on 25.07.2024 under Annexure-9.

¶38

6 . 1 . In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to file a fresh objection before Opposite Party No.2 along with a fresh affidavit. It is observed that if any such objection along with a fresh affidavit is filed within a period of seven (7) days from today before Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter and take a final decision within a further period of two (2) weeks with due intimation to the Petitioner.

¶39

7 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶40

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶41

Subrat

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 02-Sep-2024 19:09:32

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Saroj Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar Das 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

Santosh Kumar Mohanta Vs State of Orissa

Sarat Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Ranjulata Sabut Vs State of Odisha

Jagannath Kar Vs State of Odisha

Bankanidhi PrADHAN Vs Opsc

Subhashree Swain Vs State of Orissa