Orissa High Court
Ratnamanjari Swain vs State Of Odisha And Others on 3 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9558 of 2023
Ratnamanjari Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. T. Pattanaik, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 03.04.2023
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as documents
annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with
the following prayers:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for
the records and after bearing both the parties pass the
following reliefs
i) To quash the rejection order dtd.23.3.2023
under Annexure-6.
ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to appoint the
petitioner as constable in GRP, Cuttack.
iii) To direct the Opposite Parties to accept the
candidature of the petitioner as constable,
GRP, Cuttack is valid.
iv) To direct the Opposite parties to grant all
financial and consequential benefits flowing
from the date of appointment.
And pass any other order/orders, as may be deemed
// 2 //
fit and proper in the interest of Justice;"
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant
to the advertisement under Annexure-1 dated 30.12.2022, the petitioner
had submitted her candidature for recruitment to the post of Constables
in Government Railway Police(GRP), Cuttack. It is further contended
by learned counsel for the petitioner that online application of the
petitioner was accepted and she was asked to participate in the
recruitment test. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that although the petitioner was qualified in the written test as
well as physical test, however, her result was withheld by the Opposite
Party No.3 on the ground of invalidation of Employment Exchange
Registration and the same has not been renewed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court
to Annexure-3 series, submitted that the petitioner has again registered
herself with the Employment Exchange and such registration is valid till
December, 2022. However, the documents were submitted for re-
registration by the petitioner and submitted before the authorities at the
time of interview. Therefore, the authorities, under a wrong impression,
withheld the result of the petitioner by coming to a conclusion that the
earlier registration of the petitioner was valid till December, 2021 and
the same has not been renewed further.
6. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and others vrs. Miss Pritilata Nanda : reported
2010(II) OLR(SC) 636. By referring to the judgment, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court after analyzing
the position of law and by taking into consideration the Employment
Exchange (Compulsory Notification of vacancies) Act, 1959 has come
to a conclusion that even though the employer is required to notify the
// 3 //
vacancies to the employment exchanges it is not obliged to recruit only
those who are sponsored by the employment exchanges.
7. Further this Court after going through the judgment in the case of
Miss Pritilata Nanda (supra) observed that appointment was given to
the petitioner although in that case she did not get her name sponsored
by the Employment Exchange. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after
detailed analysis the facts and the legal position has categorically held
that by denying appointment to the respondent despite her selection and
placement in the merit list, the appellants-employers violated her right
to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of
the Constitution of India.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that a similar
view has also been taken in the case of Anil Singh Kaurav vrs. State of
Madhya and others (W.P.(C) No.13312 of 2022) decided on 7th of
December, 2022 by Madhya Pradesh High Court.
9. By referring to the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the
petitioner also contended that Madhya Pradesh High Court by referring
to the judgments of their own High Court in the case of Ved Prakash
Sharma and others vrs. State of M.P. : reported in 2011 (3) M.P.L.J.-
148, Kishore K. Pati vrs. Distt. Inspector of Schools : 2000(9) SCC
405 and Union of India and others vrs. Pritilata Nanda : 2020 (11)
SCC 674 came to conclusion that the respondent-authorities cannot
restrict the prospect of candidate, who is otherwise successful and
bearing essential qualifications to move forward. Only on the ground
that the candidates have failed to produce the necessary sponsorship of
registration certificate with Employment Exchange. Accordingly, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the conduct of the
Opposite Parties, in the present writ petition results in depriving the
petitioner to move ahead and not permitting her candidature for
// 4 //
recruitment to the post of Constable, which has been hit by the
principles and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore,
the Opposite Parties may be directed to consider the case of the
petitioner suitably by taking into consideration the result of the
petitioner in the recruitment test conducted by the Opposite Parties.
10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that
the petitioner has approached this Court directly without approaching
the authorities first by ventilating her grievances. He further submits
that that the petitioner may be directed to approach the Chairman, State
Selection Board, Odisha Police, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 by filing
a detailed representation indicating therein grounds along with copies of
the judgments, which she is relying in support of her contentions. In the
event such representation is filed, the Opposite Parties may be directed
to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and
in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a
stipulated period of time.
11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsels for the
respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the background
facts and further keeping in view the law laid down in the case of
Union of India and others vrs. Pritilata Nanda (supra), this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission
by directing the petitioner to approach the Chairman, State Selection
Board, Odisha Police, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.3 by filing a
representation within a period of one week hence taking therein all the
grounds along with supporting documents/judgments. In the event such
a representation is filed, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to
consider the same strictly in accordance with law and the law laid down
in the case of Union of India and others vrs. Pritilata Nanda (supra)
and dispose of the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking
// 5 //
and reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of filing
of such representation along with certified copy of this order. Opposite
Party No.3 is further directed to act upon on production of certified
copy of this order and dispose of the representation within the aforesaid
time. The decision so taken on the representation of the petitioner shall
be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
12. Further, it is directed that till a decision is taken on the
representation of the petitioner, one post of Constable for which the
petitioner applied shall not be filled up.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Jagabandhu
JAGABAND Digitally signed by
JAGABANDHU BEHERA
HU BEHERA 22:13:42 -07'00'
Date: 2023.04.04
