Sarbeswar Nayak Vs State

Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. In spite of due appearance, none appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No. 4 when the matter was called.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Opp. Party No. 4 who was selected as against the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, was not having the driving licence for two -wheeler, she should not have been selected and appointed, so appointed vide order dtd.01.12.2008 under Annexure-5.

¶15

3.1. It is accordingly contended that since Opp. Party No. 4 who was appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 was not having the valid DL in terms of the advertisement, she should not have been selected and appointed and the same requires interference of this Court.

¶16

Page 1 of 3.

¶17

Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 on the other hand contended that pursuant to the advertisement so issued, Petitioner and Opp. Party No. 4 participated in the selection process. In the said selection, the selected candidate-Opp. Party No. 4 since has secured more mark than the Petitioner, which is not disputed, no illegality can be found with her selection. It is also contended that on the date of interview, Opp. party No. 4 since produced the Driving Licence, which was found to be in terms of the advertisement, the ground of challenge so made in the writ petition is not entertainable.

¶18

4.1. It is contended that since at the time of interview, which was only the method of selection, Opp. Party No. 4 produced the Driving Licence and she has been duly appointed in the year 2008 with continuance of around 18 years as on date, no interference is called for.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 by Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner and Opp. Party No. 4 participated in the selection process along with others. However, when Opp. Party No. 4 was appointed vide order dtd.01.12.2008 under Annexure-5 as against the post of Malaria Technical Supervisor, challenging the same the present writ petition was filed.

¶20

5.1. It is found that this Court while issuing notice of the writ petition vide order dtd.16.01.2009, has not passed any interim order protecting the interest of the Petitioner. It is also found and which is not disputed, Opp. Party No. 4 has secured more mark than the

¶21

Page 2 of 3.

¶22

Petitioner and at the time of interview she had produced the valid Driving Licence in terms of the advertisement.

¶23

5.2. Since Opp. Party No. 4 has already rendered service more than 18 years and she is more meritorious than the Petitioner with having the valid DL so produced at the time of interview, this Court is of the view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Opp. Party No. 3 while providing appointment to Opp. Party No. 4 vide the impugned order issued on 01.12.2008 under Annexure-5.

¶24