A provisionally selected PWD (Visually Impaired) Lecturer-in-History candidate challenged the State Selection Board's selection process. The Court found the more meritorious candidate had been medically verified and recommended for the single reserved post, held no illegality in the selection, and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.2887 of 2024
Nageswar Gouda
Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Acharya, Adv.
-versus-
. Govt. of Odisha & Another … Opp. Parties State Counsel
Mr. S.K. Das, Adv. (for opp. party NO.2)
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order No
ORDER
05.04.2024
8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer.
Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the opposite parties particularly the Opposite Party No.2 the Secretary, State Selection Board (SSB) to complete the medical verification process by the Appellate Medical Board in respect of present petitioner bearing Roll NO.2JP1200142 in History subject in pursuant to the provisional select list of History subject notified on 18.01.2024 under PWD category issued by the SSB and consequential action be taken within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.
4. It is contended that in terms of the advertisement issued by the State Selection Board (In short, <The Board=) under Annexure-1, Petitioner made his application as against the post of Lecturer in History.
4.1. It is contended that as against the discipline History, 71 posts were advertised and out of the same 4% is reserved for P.W.D category which comes to <3=. Out of the said 3 posts, one(1) post is reserved as against the category Visually Impaired (V.I) and the Petitioner made his application against P.W.D Category in the Sub-category Visual Impaired.
4.2. It is contended that the Board when published the notice dt.18.12.2023 by including the names of two (2) candidates whose names are not there in the original list published on 15.12.2023, Petitioner challenging foul play by the Board approached this Court. This Court taking into account the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner also passed an interim order on 15.02.2024.
5. Mr. Sameer Ku. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Board on the other hand contended that as per the stipulation contained in the advertisement as against the discipline History, since 71 posts were advertised, three times of the said number are required to be included the provisional select list. Accordingly vide notice issued on 15.12.2023 under AnnexureA/2, 223 candidates were provisionally selected. Since 3 candidates were wrongly not included in the initial list published on 15.12.2023, those three(3) candidates were provisionally selected vide notice dated 18.12.2023 under Annexure-B/2. It is also contended that though as per the stipulation contained in the advertisement, 213 candidates were required to be provisionally selected, being three (3) times of the vacancy in the discipline History, but since some of the candidates secured similar mark, while publishing the provisional select list vide notice dated 15.12.2023 and subsequent notice dated 18.12.2023 under Annexure-A/2 and B/2, 226 candidates were provisionally selected and out of those 226 candidates, nine (9) candidates in P.W.D category were provisionally selected i.e. 3 times of the vacancy in P.W.D category. Since as against the category Visual Impaired, one post is reserved, three (3) candidates were provisionally selected vide Roll Nos.2SP1200075, 2CT1200069 and 2JP1200142. Petitioner’s Roll Number is 2JP1200142.
Page 2 of 3
5.1. It is contended that candidate being Roll No.2SP1200075 having secured more mark, he was sponsored for authentication of his disability as a P.W.D candidate and since he was found eligible and recommended by the fresh Medical Board, the said candidate has been selected as against sub-category Visual Impaired in P.W.D category. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner though was provisionally selected, but taking into account his position in the merit list in the sub-category Visually Impaired, the candidate who was secured more mark than him, was sent for authentication by the Medical Board and after being found eligible and medically fit in all respect, his claim was recommended as against one post in the category Visual Impaired. It is accordingly contended that no illegality has been committed by the Board with regard to conduct of the selection process for selection of candidates in PWD category with subcategory Visually Impaired.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, Petitioner made his application as against the sub-category Visually Impaired in P.W.D category and one post is reserved for the sub-category Visually Impaired. Since a more meritorious candidate has been selected and recommended by the Board bearing Roll No.2SP1200075, no illegality can be found in the process of selection so conducted by the Board. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer as made in the Writ Petition and dismiss the Writ Petition accordingly.
Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
sangita
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Board's selection of a more meritorious candidate for the single Visually Impaired post, despite the petitioner's provisional selection, was illegal?
Nageswar Gouda
Govt. of Odisha
Secretary, State Selection Board (SSB)
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
