Pratima Sunani And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2652 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  W.P.(C) No.9364 of 2023

                 Pratima Sunani and another                ....           Petitioners
                                                         Mr. B. Satapathy, 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:

"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the Counsel for the Parties, issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opp. Parties to give appointment of Petitioners as Constables in respect of the Government Railway Police (GRP), Cuttack forthwith declaring the Petitioners qualified in the recruitment for the post of Constables pursuant to Advertisement No.02/SSB dated 30.12.2022 under Annexure-1.

And / or pass any other order/orders, as deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice;"

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 dated 30.12.2022, the // 2 //

petitioners were submitted their candidatures for recruitment to the post of Constables in Governm

ent Railway Police(GRP), Cuttack. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that online application of the petitioners had accepted and they were asked to participate in the recruitment. Further, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that although the petitioners were qualified in the written test as well as physical test, however, their results were withheld by the Opposite Party No.2 on the ground of invalidation of Employment Exchange Registrations and the same has not been renewed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-3 series, submitted that the petitioners have again registered themselves with the Employment Exchange and such registration is valid till December, 2022. However, the documents were submitted for registration by the petitioners before the authorities at the time of interview. Therefore, the authorities, under a wrong impression, withheld the result of the petitioners by coming to a conclusion that the earlier registration of the petitioners was valid till December, 2021 and the same has not been renewed further.

6. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 vacancies to the employment exchanges, it is not obliged to recruit only those who are sponsored by the employment // 3 //

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 that case they did not get their names 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners that the conduct of the Opposite Parties, in the present writ petition results in depriving the petitioners to move ahead and not permitting offer their candidatures for recruitment to the post of Constable, which has been hit by the // 4 //

principles and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the Opposite Parties may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners have approached this Court directly without approaching the authorities first by ventilating their grievances. He further submits that that the petitioners 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 they are relying in support of their contentions. In the event such representation is filed, the Opposite Parties may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners to approach the Chairman, State Selection Board, Odisha Police, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 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.2 shall do well to consider the same strictly in accordance with law the law and laid down in the case of Union of India and others vrs. Pritilata Nanda (supra) and dispose of the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the // 5 //

date of filing of such representation along with certified copy of this order. Opposite Party No.2 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 petitioners shall be communicated to the petitioners within a week thereafter.

12. Further, it is directed that till a decision is taken on the representations of the petitioners' two posts of Constables for which the petitioners have 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

JAGABANDH Digitally signed by JAGABANDHU BEHERA

U BEHERA Date: 2023.04.04 22:12:12 -07'00'