Ranjan Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule “NISI” to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to;

¶15

(i) Why the action of the Opp. Party No.1 in recommending not to award makes to the petitioner in the verification report prepared under Annexure-6 on the ground that the certificates obtained are prior to the Resolution dated 2010 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and liable as such to be set aside/quash; and

¶16

(ii) Why the action of the Opposite Party No.4 in not awarding any marks in favour of the petitioner in the merit list prepared under

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Annexure-9 for the certificates of participation in the National Level and State Level Net Ball Championships in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and liable as such to be set aside/quash; and

¶19

(iii) Why the Opp. Parties will not be directed to award marks in favour of the petitioner for obtaining certificates in the National Level and State Level Net Ball Championships within a stipulated time; and

¶20

(iv)Why the Opposite parties will not be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his engagement as Part Time Instructor (Physical Education) after awarding the marks in favour of the petitioner for obtaining certificates in the National Level and State Level Net Ball Championship within a time stipulated.”

¶21

4. It is contended that even though while making the application to get the benefit of engagement as Part Time Instructor (Physical Instructor) pursuant to Annexure-1, petitioner produced the certificate showing his participation in the 23^rd Senior National Net Ball Championship for Men and Women, 2003 vide Annexure-2 and the certificate was also found to be genuine as reflected in Annexure-5, but by not awarding any mark for such participation, petitioner’s name has been included in the impugned final merit list at Sl. No.204. It is contended that had the petitioner been awarded extra mark for such participation in the championship, petitioner’s place would have been much higher and he would have got the benefit of appointment.

¶22

4.1. It is also contended that similar issue was before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.28754 & 28760 of 2019.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

This Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 held that similarly situated candidates having been allowed the benefit of extra mark by District Project Officer, RTESS, Balasore in respect of the selfsame advertisement, directed the Opp. Parties therein to extend similar benefit of extra mark to the petitioners therein. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the order passed by this Court on 22.03.2024 non award of marks in favour of the petitioner for his participation in the championship in question, certificate of which was found to be genuine, is illegal and requires interference of this Court.

¶26

5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has not yet been issued, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that if claim of the petitioner is covered by order dated 22.03.2024 so passed by this Court under Annexure-8 series, let the petitioner make an appropriate application by ventilating her grievance before O.P. No.4.

¶27

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the petitioner to make an appropriate application before O.P. No.4 to get the benefit of award of extra mark for his participation in the Championship in question and consequential selection and appointment. It is observed that if any such application is moved before O.P. No.4 within a period of 2

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, O.P. No.4 shall take a lawful decision on the same by following the order passed by this Court 22.03.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.28754 & 28760 of 2019, within a further period of 2 (two) weeks. Till a decision is taken as directed, one post of Part Time Instructor (Physical Education) may not be filled up basing on the select list published under Annexure-9.

¶31

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶33

sangita

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 31-Aug-2024 13:05:55

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Ranjan Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kumar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Kumar Seth Vs Fakir Mohan University, Balasore

Bivakar Lenka Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Premalata Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Ramamanai Dikshit Vs State of Odisha