Gargaba Biswal vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1569 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                                       W.A. No.293 of 2018

            Gargaba Biswal                             ....           Appellant
                                         Mr. Anil Kumar Behera, Advocate
                                       -versus-
            State of Odisha and others              ....      Respondents
                                    Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA for State

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

                                          ORDER

20.02.2023 Order No.

05. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 2nd May, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.23133 of 2014 filed by the present Appellant. Before the learned Single Judge, the Appellant had questioned an order dated 21st November, 2014 issued by the Sarpanch of the Patuapali Gram Panchayat (GP) directing the Appellant to resign from his post of Jogana Sahayak in the said GP.

2. The background facts are that pursuant to an advertisement published by the Block Development Officer, Agalpur (Duduka) in Balangir District, applications were received including that of the Appellant and two others. In the final select list, one Manjusri Mahakud stood in the first position, the Appellant in the second and Respondent No.6 at Serial No.3.

3. The person at Serial No.1 tendered her resignation on 31st July, 2014. Thereafter, a letter was issued to the present Appellant to join as Jogana Sahayak which he did on 19th September, 2014.

4. A letter was issued on 30th October, 2014 by the BDO to the Sarpanch to prepare the panel list chronologically. On 21st November 2014, the impugned letter was issued to the Appellant by the Sarpanch asking him to tender his resignation.

5. The contention of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the calculation of marks secured by Respondent No.6 in the qualifying exam was erroneous. It was contended that the percentage of marks secured by Respondent No.6 worked out to 37.54% whereas the Appellant had secured 38% inasmuch as she had obtained 342 marks out of 900.

6. As noted by the learned Single Judge initially Respondent No.6 had submitted in her application form that she had secured 413 marks out of 1100 inclusive of the marks secured by her in the optional subject. The percentage then worked out to 37.54%. Subsequent thereto, it was realized that if the optional subjects were excluded then she would secure 374 marks out of 900, the percentage of which worked out to 41.56% in the CHSC.

7. As noted by learned Single Judge, the selection procedure involved giving weightage of 30% for matriculation, 30% for +2 and 40% for +3. As further noted by giving such weightage, Respondent No.6 scored 46.20% whereas the Appellant scored 45.99%

8. It was plain therefore on merits that by virtue of the above calculation, Respondent No.6 was more meritorious than the Appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the Appellant sought to contend that the Selection Committee tampered with the calculation of the marks to unfairly favour Respondent No.6. As noted by learned Single Judge, the Section Committee recognized that an error had been committed in calculating the marks secured by Respondent No.6 after excluding the marks for the optional subjects. That is how the marks worked out to 374 out of 900 and the percentage worked out to 46.20%. The admitted position is as far as the Appellant is concerned, his percentage worked out to 41.56%. Even after giving weightage, the Appellant scored less than Respondent No.6. Consequently, this Court does not find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge as far as the relative positions of the Respondent No.6 and the Appellant on merit.

10. It is then contended that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Appellant was not issued with a notice about the discrepancy in the calculation and not giving an opportunity to explain his position.

11. As rightly noted by learned Single Judge, the marks scored and the calculation are all part of the record and it could have made no difference even if the Petitioner had been given a prior hearing before the result. The learned Single Judge rightly invoked the concept of useless formality. In other words, even if the Appellant would be given now an opportunity of being heard, the end result would be no different.

12. The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition of the Appellant.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge M. Panda