Bhabendra Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C). No. 7190 of 2016

¶3

(An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

--------------- Purna Chandra Sahoo ...… Petitioners -VersusState of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties

¶5

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶6

_______________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Ms. S. Gumansingh Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.Behera Additional Government Advocate

¶7

_______________________________________________________ CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

11^th March, 2025

¶11

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

¶12

An advertisement was published by the State Project Director, Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA) on 11.09.2014 for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks in different districts including Bolangir. Subsequently, as per

¶13

direction of this Court in another writ application filed by

¶14

Page 1 of 11

¶15

some overaged candidates, a corrigendum was issued to the advertisement on 09.02.2016 raising the maximum age from 35 to 42 years. The petitioner, being an overaged candidate became eligible to apply as per the corrigendum. Further, having BA/B.Ed. and OTET II qualification he submitted his application pursuant to the corrigendum. He was called upon for verification of original testimonials and other certificates. A list of eligible candidates was published by OPEPA wherein the petitioner’s name found place at SL. No. 123. By notice dated 19.03.2016, a provisional list of candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement as 4^th preference from Bolangir district were intimated to remain personally present for verification of the original documents on 29.06.2016 but the petitioner was not so called upon. He, therefore, filed this writ application seeking the following relief:

¶16

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶17

(i) Admit the writ petition;

¶18

(ii) Call for the records,

¶19

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the opposite parties, particularly, opposite party No.5 to issue necessary engagement orders in favour of the petitioner taking into consideration their position in the provisional merit list prepared by opposite party No.3 OPEPA under Annexure-3 and further the opposite parties be directed to extend all financial and service benefits in favour of the petitioners as has ben extended to the persons who have already been selected; and

¶20

Page 2 of 11

¶21

(iv) Pass such other order/order, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.

¶22

Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Project Coordinator (DPC), SSA, Bolangir. It is stated that the advertisement dated 11.09.2014 was published notifying 716 nos. of vacancies of Bolangir district. All candidates were allowed to give option for 5 districts according to priority. Out of 716 posts, 215 posts were meant for Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Science) and 143 posts for TGT (Arts). The vacancies in each category were prepared considering the backlog vacancies of SC, ST & PH category. As such, in the list, prepared the vacancies under TGT (Arts) came to 89 after deducting 54 backlog vacancies out of 143. The petitioner had applied for Bolangir district as his 1^st preference. The provisional merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner’s name found place at SL No. 94. But he could not be selected as his total marks was 168.87 per cent as against the last selected candidate under SEBC category who had secured 182.99 per cent marks. As such, the petitioner could not be selected. As per the guidelines laid down by the Government after completion of the procedure of engagement of

¶23

Page 3 of 11

¶24

candidates for 1^st preference, OPEPA supplied the list of candidates opting for Bolangir as their 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th & 5^th preference. As such, the comparison of marks regarding selection of candidates of first priority district with candidates selected with other priorities does not arise. Further, the petitioner is not an overaged candidate as his date of birth 04.05.1979.

¶25

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder seeking to refute the stand taken in the counter. It is stated that three candidates namely, Seshadev Padhee, Suratha Naik and Belarsen Sahu have been selected and engaged despite securing less than 182.99% marks and having opted Bolangir as their 2^nd preference district. Belarsen Sahu, whose name appeared at Sl. No. 5 in the original draft list prepared on 10.10.2014 and who cited Bolangir as his 1^st preference district, was subsequently selected. The case of the petitioner was not considered on the plea that selection for 1^st preference had been completed but the Opposite Parties selected candidates securing less percentage of mark citing 2^nd preference as Bolangir. It is further reiterated that the petitioner belongs to

¶26

Page 4 of 11

¶27

the age group of 35 -42 years and had applied pursuant to the corrigendum dated 09.02.2016.

¶28

4.Heard Ms. S. Gumansingh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Behera, learned AGA for the State.

¶29

Ms. Gumansingh would submit that as per information obtained by the petitioner from the office of DPC, it is evident that candidates securing less percentage of marks and who opted Bolangir as their 2^nd preference district have been engaged as Sikshya Sahayaks. She further submits that after completion of the process of engagement of candidates of the1^st preference district, the process of engaging the 2^nd preference candidates was started from out of the list supplied by the OPEPA to fill up those vacancies which were not filled up or had arisen due to non-joining/resignation of candidates selected. But in the letter dated 31.07.2015 of OPEPA, it is stated that a separate list of overaged candidates as per the 3^rd preference choice were available. Ms. Gumansingh further submits that 7 candidates selected under B.Ed. (Arts) category had resigned against which the candidatures of 6 persons including Seshadev Padhee, Suratha Naik and Belarsen Sahu was considered despite the

¶30

Page 5 of 11

¶31

fact that they had not opted Bolangir as their 1^st preference district. These persons have secured less marks than the petitioner for which, their engagement ignoring the case of the petitioner is completely illegal. According to Ms. Gumansingh, the petitioner should have been selected against the vacancies before going for selection of 2^nd preference candidates.

¶32

Per contra, Mr. Behera, learned State counsel would submit that the persons named by the petitioner and 3 others who were selected had obtained positive orders in their favour from this Court, for which they were accommodated against the vacancies of TGT (Arts) category caused due to resignation of 7 candidates already engaged. Mr. Behera further submits that the petitioner having secured less marks than the last candidate of his category during the selection of 1^st preference candidates could not have been selected. He cannot claim parity with persons engaged against the vacancies arising out of resignation of 7 candidates for the above reason.

¶33

There is no dispute with regard to facts inasmuch as the

¶34

petitioner was one of the candidates pursuant to the

¶35

Page 6 of 11

¶36

advertisement dated 11.09.2014 read with the corrigendum dated 09.02.2016. The petitioner cited Bolangir as his 1^st preference district. In the provisional merit list, he was placed at Sl. No.94. It is seen that he secured 168.87% marks. The provisional selection list, which was subsequently published, contains the list of 65 persons. The petitioner belongs to the SEBC category. The last person of SEBC category is said to have secured 182.99 marks, which is more than the marks secured by the petitioner. There is also no dispute that 7 persons from the said list resigned though their particulars have not been given. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is stated that 3 persons namely, Seshadev Padhee, Suratha Naik and Belarsen Sahu had cited Bolangir as their 1st preference district but despite securing less marks were selected and engaged. From the draft list of applicants annexed to the rejoinder, it is seen that Belarsen Sahu was placed at Sl. No. 44 and secured 149.50% marks, Seshadev Padhee being placed at Sl. No. 359 secured 157.2629% marks and Surath Nayak being placed at Sl. No. 392 secured 154.6743% marks. As against the above, the petitioner Purna Chandra Sahoo was placed at Sl. No. 279

¶37

Page 7 of 11

¶38

and secured 168.866% marks. The applications of the above named three applicants have also been enclosed to the rejoinder being obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act. Perusal of these documents would indicate that all three candidates had cited Bolangir as their first preference district. Such being the case, it is not understood as to how they could be engaged after completion of the 1^st preference choice candidates. Even so, how could they be engaged ahead of the petitioner who secured more marks than them and also cited Bolangir as his 1st preference. It has been argued on behalf of the State that those 3 persons were engaged in compliance of the order passed by this Court in their favour. The details of the cases filed by the said candidates and the orders passed therein have not been stated. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the State that while directing the authorities to engage the said persons against the vacancies arising due to resignation of 7 1st preference candidates, the case of the petitioner was to be ignored.

¶39

From the foregoing narration, it appears that the petitioner having secured less marks than the last selected candidate of

¶40

Page 8 of 11

¶41

his category of candidates citing Bolangir as their 1^st preference district could not be selected. The authorities cannot be faulted on this score. However, 7 candidates selected in the first phase resigned resulting in 7 vacancies. It has been argued that by such time, the first phase selection was over. If such is the case, then how could the 3 persons named by the petitioner in his rejoinder, securing less marks than him and citing Bolangir as their 1st preference district, could be selected ?. If 7 vacancies arose, then the selection ought to have been made from out of the provisional list of candidates strictly in terms of merit.

¶42

It is seen that by letter dated 30.7.2015 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (S & ME Department) the State Project Director, OPEPA was directed to fill up vacancies arising out of resignation of the candidates engaged after 1^st and 2nd preference, by the candidates of the 3rd preference. It is also stated that the case of all overaged eligible candidates shall be sent to the district for due consideration. By letter dated 31.07.2015, OPEPA intimated all District Project Coordinators of the State to prepare merit list of candidates for 3^rd preference choice district. It was

¶43

Page 9 of 11

¶44

specifically mentioned that the candidature of the overaged candidates will be considered in their 3^rd preference choice district who have applied online subject to submission of positive orders of this Court.

¶45

If this was the instruction of the department as well as OPEPA, the question is, how could the three persons named above be engaged in their 1st preference district, that is, Bolangir. Having done so, it is obviously not open to the authorities to deny similar benefit to the petitioner as not only did he cite Bolangir as his 1st preference district but also secured more marks than the above named three persons.

¶46

From the conspectus of the facts of the case, contentions raised and the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Party authorities committed illegality in ignoring the candidature of the petitioner for selection against the vacancies arising out of resignation of 7 candidates, who being engaged in the 1st preference selection had subsequently resigned. The petitioner has therefore, made out a good case for interference by this Court.

¶47

Page 10 of 11

¶48

In the result, the writ application is allowed. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to issue order of engagement in favour of the petitioner as Sikhya Sahayak or in any redesignated equivalent post within three months from today. Such engagement shall be made notionally effective from the date the immediate junior to the petitioner as per the merit list was so engaged. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any financial benefits but his services from the aforementioned date shall be counted for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits.

¶49

……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶50

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Deepak

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 16:56:48

¶53

Page 11 of 11

Bhabendra Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabendra Pradhan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhu Charan Nahak Vs State of Odisha

Abhisek Sharma Vs Union of India

J.Santosh Rao Vs Vice Chairman Bhubaneswar Development Authority

Mithila Bhoi Vs Sovagini Panigrahi

Sabitri Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Sulochana Behera Vs Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Bhadrak