Orissa High Court
Betuna Swain vs State Of Odisha And Ors on 16 September, 2022
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23534 of 2022
Betuna Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, SC
(for S & ME Deptt.)
Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv.
(for O.P.2)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 16.09.2022
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction
from this Court to the Opposite Parties to accept his
offline application for the post of Odisha Education
Service Officers in Group-B under School and Mass
Education Department pursuant to the Advertisement
No.15 of 2021-22 issued by the Opposite Party No.2/
Odisha Public Service Commission, Cuttack and allow
him to participate in the selection process as the selection
process has not yet been commenced.
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly
submits that earlier similar issued was raised before this
Court in W.P.(C) No.4154 of 2022 (Artatran Behera and
Ors. -vrs.- State of Odisha and Ors.) and in W.P.(C)
No.4380 of 2022 (Baijayantimala Tripathy -vrs.- State of
Odisha and Ors.) and this Court vide common judgment
dated 16.05.2022 decided the issue by dismissing both the
Writ Petitions. Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition
may be disposed of in the light of the common judgment
dated 16.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.4154 and 4380 of
2022 (supra).
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Department of
School and Mass Education submits that he has no
objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the
common judgment dated 16.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C)
Nos.4154 and 4380 of 2022 (supra).
6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in
the common judgment dated 16.05.2022 in W.P.(C)
Nos.4154 and 4380 of 2022 (supra), it appears that similar
issue has already been decided by this Court in the said
judgment. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as
follows.
"12. The last date for submission of online
registered applications in the website was
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
18.12.2021
(11:59 P.M.). Admittedly, the
petitioners were already overaged on the date of
submission of the application. As a result, the
OnLine portal did not accept the application of the
petitioners. However, in view of the Court order
passed in W.P.(C) No. 38527 of 2021 which only
directed the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the
grievances of the Petitioner which was never a
positive order to allow them to participate in the
recruitment process. The petitioners submitted
their application in hard copies much after the last
date of submission was over. Resultantly, the
Opposite Party No.2 refused to accept the hard
copies. In view of the above discussion, it is a no-
brainer that it was the prerogative of the Opposite
Party No.2 to accept or refuse the hard copies of
the petitioner and to allow them to participate in
the selection process as per law. But, there is no
obfuscation in the decision of the Opposite Party
No.2 which is decidedly law oriented and can't be
subverted on any ground of misplaced sympathy
to some petitioners.
13. The clarification in the amendment rules,
mentioned hereinabove keeps nothing under
wraps to trigger any kind of controversy. There is
also no room to misread the Government's
Notification regarding age relaxation to term it as
inequitious.
14. The petitioners knew very well that they were
overaged at the time of submission of application
form and the notification of age relaxation was not
even notified then. They were knowingly blind to
the facts and harping on the issues leading to
unnecessary wasting the valuable time of the
Court. But the petitioners had applied through
// 4 //
hard copies after the closing date of submission of
online registered applications which is apparent
from the postal receipts filed by the petitioners.
This itself unsuits the petitioners to participate in
the selection process.
15. In such view of the matter, the petitioners
cannot be granted relief of the relaxation of age
limit in terms of the present advertisement. They
can claim such relaxation in other advertisement
where the last date of application is not over.
16. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are
dismissed."
7. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is
disposed of being dismissed in the light of the common
judgment dated 16.05.2022 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.4154
and 4380 of 2022 (supra).
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
B.Jhankar
