Pratibha Prusty Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.26126 of 2023

Pratibha Prusty …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.Mr. S. Swain, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and …. Opposite Parties others Represented by Adv.Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶5

ORDER 20.09.2025

¶6

Order No. 5. Pursuant to advertisement dated 07.05.2018, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1, petitioner had staked her candidature for appointment to the post of Hindi Teacher. She came to be selected along with others and the Select List was prepared and published on 21.10.2019 at Annexure-2, wherein her name figures at Sl. No.2. It is the grievance of petitioner that at no point of time the counselling notice was issued to her and therefore she could not participate in the counselling that was eventually held on 30.10.2019 and as a result, she is denied equal and reasonable opportunity in the matter of public employment, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Argues petitioner’s counsel.

¶7

Learned AGA Mr. Jee appearing for the OPs resists the petition contending that all information was webhosted and the fault lies with the petitioner in not accessing the same and therefore, the petition should be dismissed. He also points out that when other candidates had appeared for counselling, there is no reason for the petitioner to remain away from the scheduled counselling and therefore, she cannot be permitted to take the

¶8

Page 1 of 3

¶9

benefit for her own wrong. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter, inasmuch in the advertisement dated 07.05.2018, whereby applications were called for online, nothing was stated that the further process would be only on online basis and that no paper intimation would be sent to any candidate. In fact, in the order dated 06.05.2023 at Annexure-4 issued by Collector of Kandhamal District, it is specifically stated as under:

¶11

“Whereas, Notice vide letter No.3851/SSD dated 21.10.2019 of District Welfare Officer, Kandhamal, Phulbani was published in the district website, wherein 19 no. of candidates including 4 no. of candidates of under Hindi Teacher category were requested to appear before the DWO, Kandhamal for counselling on 30.10.2019 at 10.30 AM but no intimation has been given to the candidates by any recorded delivery. Though name of Pratibha Prusty was enlisted in above said notice, her name was not approved in the District Selection Committee Meeting for selection of teachers for SSD run Schools held on 20.10.2018.”

¶12

The post applied for was a Hindi Teacher and not the Professor of Computer Science. The perspective employer was the School and not an MNC or a Ciber Unit. It needs no research to tell that bulk of our society is not Ciber literate. Had the letter been put into the post box, the Postman would have delivered the same to the candidates and on such delivery all they would have turned to counselling. However, all that did not happen and that itself constitutes a great error apparent on the face of record warranting interference of this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in telling the Court that in days like these, when there is a rat race for public employment, no selected candidate would remain away from the steps to

¶14

Page 2 of 3

¶15

be taken for gaining entry to the counselling centre. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for denying appointment to the petitioner in terms of selection list. Anything in variance would strike at the root of law, at the root of reason and at the root of justice. This Court has noted from the record that vacancies in the post are still available.

¶16

In the above circumstances, this petition is favoured. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing Order No.2067/SSD dated 06.05.2023 coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to conduct fresh counseling by sending a letter in writing to the petitioner and other candidates, if any, whose names appear in the waiting list, for the purpose of appointment. This exercise to be accomplished within a period of three months and compliance should be sent to the Registrar General of this Court, failing which, it is open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for taking penal action against the errant officials.

¶17

Now, no costs.

¶18

Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶19

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶20

Prasant

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 20-Sep-2025 17:57:44