Orissa High Court
Amit Kumar Bhoi vs Principal Secretary on 31 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21940 of 2016
Amit Kumar Bhoi ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Principal Secretary, Cooperation
Department, Odisha Secretariat,
Bhubaneswar and others ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Mishra,
Advocate
For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. S.N. Pattanaik,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
For Opp. Party No.8 : Mr. S.K. Dalai,
Advocate
----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 12.07.2023 Date of Judgment: 31.10.2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J. The Petitioner, who was one of the applicant for
the post of Secretary of the Bhadra Service Cooperative
Society (Opposite Party No.7), being aggrieved by the selection
list prepared by the Opposite Party No.7 as at Annexure-4,
vide which the present Opposite Party No.8 was held to have
qualified for the next phase of selection, so also his
disqualification for such selection, has preferred the present
Writ Petition.
2. The brief background facts, which lead to filing of
the present Writ Petition, are that pursuant to an
advertisement published in the local daily as well as in the
Notice Board of the Opposite Party No.7-Society for filling up
of the post of Secretary, the Petitioner applied for the said
post on 10th October, 2014 along with all the required
documents. The said application submitted by the Petitioner
was also duly acknowledged by the Office of the Opposite
Party No.7-Society.
3. Pursuant to the said submission of application,
vide notice dated 17th August, 2015, the Petitioner was called
upon to attend the Office of the Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Societies (ARCS), Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.4)
on 27th August, 2015 for verification of the documents by the
Appointment Committee. Pursuant to such notice, Petitioner
appeared on the scheduled date and the documents
submitted by him were duly verified and found to be in order.
After the verification of the said documents, no
communication was made to the Petitioner by the Office of the
ARCS, Titilagarh. However, knowing about the selection of an
ineligible candidate as the Secretary of the Opposite Party
No.7-Society, ignoring the merit of the Petitioner, he asked for
details of selection documents under the Right to Information
Act, 2005, shortly, RTI Act, to the ARCS, Titilagarh (Opposite
Party No.4). After getting those documents from the Opposite
Party No.4, it came to the notice of the Petitioner that his
candidature has been rejected on the plea that the Caste
Certificate and Resident Certificate produced by him were
beyond the period of six months from the last date of
submission of application i.e. 10th October, 2014, as
stipulated in the proceeding of the Appointment Committee.
4. Though the Petitioner is having higher percentage
of marks than the selected candidate and preferential higher
qualification of MCA, his candidature was rejected solely on
the ground that the Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate
produced by him were beyond the stipulated period of six
months from the last date of submission of application as
fixed in the proceeding. The said proceeding was subsequent
to the date of advertisement as at Annexure-1. Such term was
never disclosed/reflected in the advertisement made for the
post of Secretary. It also came to the notice of the Petitioner
that there is further anomaly in the process of selection of the
Secretary, as the Opposite Party No.8, though was not
complying with the said stipulation and submitted his
Resident Certificate dated 11th October, 2014, which is one
day after the last date of application, he was selected
fraudulently ignoring the merit of the Petitioner, who has
secured higher marks than the Opposite Party No.8 and is
having the preferential qualification of MCA as prescribed in
the advertisement. Further case of the Petitioner is that at the
time of verification of documents on 27th August, 2015, the
then S.A.R.C.S (Ex-Member Convenor) one Mr. A.K. Bagarti
found that all the documents submitted by the Petitioner are
correct and accepted the same. But subsequently, the then
S.A.R.C.S. was changed and the new Convenor namely Sri
Kshyama Majhi came in place of Mr. A.K. Bagarti, who did not
accept the earlier verification and surreptitiously the selection
process already undertaken was ignored. A new process was
adopted, wherein a clause was added that documents like
Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate beyond the period of
six months from the last date fixed for receipt of the
application will not be accepted. Even at the time of
verification of documents, Petitioner submitted the Caste
Certificate as well as Resident Certificate of earlier, so also
recently issued i.e. of the period within six months, but the
verification Officer found all the documents to be in order as
per the requirement of the advertisement. Hence, submission
of the fresh Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate were not
required though it was produced by the Petitioner before the
verification officer, who was verifying the documents.
However, on the self same ground, the Petitioner's
candidature was rejected and the Resident Certificate of the
selected candidate issued subsequent to the last date of
submission of the application was accepted and the Opposite
Party No.8 was selected even though the Petitioner is having
higher marks as well as is having preferential qualification of
MCA.
5. It is further case of the Petitioner that, he was
totally in dark regarding selection of Opposite Party No.8 and
rejection of his candidature on frivolous ground that the
documents produced by him were beyond the period of six
months as stipulated, which was neither in the advertisement
nor communicated to the candidate at the time of verification
of documents. The so called proceeding created subsequent to
the date of advertisement and such fixation of six months
prior to the last date of receiving of the application for the
Caste Certificate as well as Resident Certificate was stipulated
in the said proceeding. The said decision taken subsequently
was also not adhered to in the case of selected candidate i.e.
Opposite Party No.8, as his document was of dated 11th
October, 2014, which is one day latter to the last date of
application i.e. 10th October, 2014. Thus, the so called rule
was made applicable to the Petitioner but not in the case of
the present Opposite Party No.8. Therefore, the entire
selection procedure was fraudulent and against rule
prescribed for the selection of the Secretary and on the said
ground alone, the selection of Opposite Party No.8 is liable to
be struck down. The Petitioner, who is suitable as per the
advertisement, is to be allowed to man the post of Secretary.
6. Being aggrieved by the said illegalities committed
by the Appointment Committee and after getting information
under the R.T.I. Act, immediately the Petitioner represented to
the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Bolangir (Opposite
Party No.3), Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society,
Titilagarh (Opposite Party no.4) and the President of Bhadra
Service Cooperative Society-cum-Chairman, Bhadra (Opposite
Party No.9) to enquire into the illegality committed on
selection to the post of Secretary of the said Society, but no
action was taken by the said authorities on the representation
of the Petitioner.
7. It was reliably learnt that the entire process of
appointment for the post of Secretary for Bhadra Service
Cooperative Society has been manipulated by the Selection
Committee to appoint Opposite Party No.8, ignoring the merit
of the Petitioner. The said aspect has been pointed out by the
other members of the said Society to the D.R.C.S., Bolangir,
but no step has been taken to enquire about the said matter.
Furthermore, even though the selection has been made on 4th
December, 2015, but the Opposite Party no.8 was never
appointed till 5th February, 2016, which was evident from the
letter of the ARCS, Titilagrh addressing one Sagar Rana as the
Secretary, Bhadra SCS and subsequently on 24th November,
2016, when the present Opposite Party No.8 issued a letter to
the Petitioner signing as the Secretary of the said Society.
Thus such action of the Selection Committee is a colourable
exercise of power to violate all the procedures to give
appointment to the present Opposite Party No.8 as Secretary
of the Opposite Party No.7-Society.
8. In response to the averments made in the Writ
Petition, the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society,
Titilagarh (Opposite Party No.4) and Sub Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative Society-cum-Member Convenor, Titilagarh
(Opposite Party No.5) have filed a joint Counter Affidavit. A
stand has been taken therein that the Opposite Party No.4
being the Member Convenor was noticed on 12th August,
2015 intimating that the Appointment Committee was fixed to
be held on 27th August, 2015 at 11.00 A.M. in the Office of
the A.R.C.S., Titilagarh Circle. As some of the Committee
Members were found absent on the scheduled date and time,
the Appointment Committee meeting could not be held on the
said date. As many as nine candidates out of thirteen
candidates, so noticed, were present on the scheduled date
and time for verification of their original documents.
Accordingly, their original documents were verified. The said
meeting was reconvened on 4th December, 2015. On the said
date the Appointment Committee after scrutiny and proper
verification of the documents, prepared a merit list. The
Committee found Opposite Party No.8 to be meritorious
among the other participants. Accordingly, Sri Digambar
Sahu, the present Opposite Party No.8, was selected as the
Secretary of the Society. It has further been pleaded in the
Counter Affidavit that the selection of Opposite Party No.8 as
the Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society is the
decision of the Appointment Committee, which should have
been communicated by the Committee to the Petitioner. The
Opposite Party No.4 is no way responsible for such non-
communication of the result to the Petitioner. However, the
information sought for by the Petitioner under the R.T.I. Act
has already been provided by the Opposite Party No.4. So far
as Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate are concerned, it
has been stated that the said certificates are valid for one year
from the date of issuance of such certificates. The
Appointment Committee in its meeting unanimously set a
standard with regard to age, residence, caste and knowledge
in computer application and decided to accept Resident and
Caste Certificates issued recently and not to entertain those
certificates, which were issued beyond six months of last date
fixed for receipt of application in the Society. It has further
been stated that the Caste Certificate issued in the year 2011
i.e. Misc. Case No.08/900/2011 by the Tahasildar, Saintala,
was submitted by the Petitioner along with the application,
which was supposed to be submitted on or before 10th
October, 2014 by 4.00 P.M. As the Petitioner failed to submit
recent Resident Certificate, his application was not considered
by the Appointment Committee. The guidelines of the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha, Bhubaneswar
(Opposite Party No.2) were followed by the Appointment
Committee as well as by the Bhadra Society in the matter of
recruitment of the Secretary of the said Society. Further stand
of the said Opposite Parties that the allegation of the
Petitioner was enquired into by the Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative Society Bolangir Division. After verification of
records, it was found that the Petitioner's name was not
included in the merit list.
9. So far as the allegation made in paragraph-5 of the
Writ Petition, it has been admitted that Opposite Party No.8
had submitted the Resident Certificate one day after the last
date of application. It has been further stated in the Counter
Affidavit that the Appointment Committee was scheduled to
be held on 27th August, 2015. However, as one of the
Committee Members was absent on the scheduled date and
time, the Appointment Committee could not be held on the
said date. Mr. A.K. Bagarty being the Convenor of the
Committee, verified the submitted documents with the
originals, but was not competent to take a decision without
the other Committee Members. Hence, on the next date of
meeting i.e. on 4th December, 2015, Shri Kshyama Majhi,
S.A.R.C.S-cum-Convenor along with other Committee
Members verified the documents and selected the Secretary
basing on the academic carrier of the candidates. As per
guidelines of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, the selection list was prepared and the
Opposite Party No.8 was found to be most meritorious
candidate amongst other candidates. Accordingly, he was
selected as such. A stand has also been taken in the Counter
Affidavit that the Appointment Committee is the Competent
Authority to take decision in the matter of selection of the
Secretary of the Society and the Opposite Party No.4 has no
role in the said selection process. It has also been stated that
based on the allegation of the Petitioner, the matter was
enquired into by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Bolangir Division and after verification of records, it was
found that the Petitioner's name was not included in the merit
list. On receipt of the application of the Petitioner under the
R.T.I. Act, the Opposite Party no.4 issued letters both to the
Secretary of PACS and to the Ex-Secretary of the Society
seeking information. Inadvertently, the name of Sri Sagar
Rana got mentioned in the said communication made to the
Secretary of PACS, who had supplied the information under
the R.T.I. Act. Thus, it has been clarified that the said letter of
the Opposite Party No.4 was with regard to supply of
documents and information to the Petitioner and not related
to appointment.
10. Being noticed, the private Opposite Party no.8,
whose selection and appointment as Secretary of the Opposite
Party No.7-Society is under challenge, has filed a Counter
Affidavit taking a stand therein that replies of Opposite Party
Nos.9 and 10 are necessary for proper adjudication of the
matter. The new Committee must have been arrayed as
Opposite Party for maintainability of the Writ Petition. Further
stand of private Opposite Party No.8 is that the rule provides
for validity of Resident as well as Caste Certificate. In absence
of the said certificates, acceptance of candidature of the
Petitioner itself is bad in law. The Selection Committee rightly
rejected the candidature of the Petitioner. It has further been
pleaded by the Opposite Party No.8 that the powers of
relaxation and acceptance of the advertisement vests with the
competency of the Selection Committee in terms of the
advertisement and action of the Selection Committee is within
the framework of law. A stand has also been taken by the
Opposite Party No.8 that, he has already completed more
than six years of service and the decision of the Committee is
well within the terms of advertisement with regard to validity
of Caste Certificate and Resident Certificate. The same are
valid for one year from the date of issue of such certificates
and earlier it was up to six months as per prevailing Rules.
Hence, cancellation of candidature of the Petitioner is legal
and justified. It has further been stated in the said Counter
Affidavit that the Appointment Committee in its meeting,
unanimously set a standard with regard to age, residence,
caste and knowledge in computer application and decided to
accept the Resident and Caste Certificate issued recently and
not to entertain those certificates which were issued beyond
six months of last date fixed for receipt of application by the
Society. Since the Petitioner failed to submit recent Resident
Certificate, his application has not been considered by the
Appointment Sub-Committee, which is the competent
authority to take a decision in the matter of selection of the
Secretary of the Society.
11. Though notices were duly served on Bhadra
Service Cooperative Society, President, Vice-President and
Authorised Committee of the Bhadra Cooperative Society,
Bhadra, who have been arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.7, 9,
10 & 11 respectively, the said Opposite Parties shoes not to
appear in the present case to have their say and oppose the
prayer made in the Writ Petition.
12. In response to the Counter Affidavit filed by
Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5, the Petitioner has filed a Rejoinder
Affidavit dated 18th April, 2022 indicating therein that the
meeting of the Appointment Committee was supposed to be
held on 27th August, 2015 in the Office of the ARCS,
Titilagarh. But due to absence of some Committee members,
the meeting of the Appointment Committee could not be held.
Subsequently, on 4th December, 2015, it was reconvened and
the Appointment Committee after scrutiny and proper
verification of the documents prepared the merit list and
found the Opposite Party No.8 to be meritorious and selected
him as Secretary. The said selection was surreptitiously done
and was neither communicated to anybody nor notified by the
Society. It is only when the Petitioner asked for the result of
the interview under the R.T.I. Act, it was communicated by
the Opposite Party No.4, wherefrom the Petitioner could came
to know that his candidature has been rejected on the ground
of non-fulfilling of the criteria as to possession of Caste
Certificate as well as Resident Certificate issued prior to six
months from the last date of submission of application i.e.
10th October, 2014. Further, it has been stated in the
Rejoinder Affidavit that the plea of Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5
that the Resident Certificate and Caste Certificate are valid for
one year from the date of issue of such certificate, though was
very much known to the Opposite Parties, but the same was
never specified in the advertisement, as at vide Annexure-1 to
the Writ Petition. Similarly, the plea of the Opposite Party
Nos.4 & 5 that the Appointment Committee in its meeting
dated 4th December, 2015 has unanimously set a standard
with regard to age, resident, caste and knowledge in computer
application and decided to accept the Resident and Caste
Certificate issued recently and not to entertain those
certificates which were beyond six months of the last date
fixed for receipt of the application in the society, is not
sustainable in the eye of law in view of well established
position of law that the terms and conditions for recruitment
cannot be changed after selection process starts without
notice to the candidates and deviation from it will amount to
violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India as reported
in the case of A.S. Ananya Pradhan vs. Govt. of India and
others, reported in 2020(II) ILR-CUT-551.
13. It has further been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit
that the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 have admitted in the
Counter Affidavit that Opposite Party No.8 submitted his
Resident Certificate one day after the last date of submission
of the application i.e. on 11th October, 2014, which was
accepted and Opposite Party No.8 was selected ignoring the
merit of the present Petitioner, who secured highest total
marks that the present Opposite Party No.8 and is having
MCA degree which was specifically provided in the
advertisement vide Annexure-1 that preference shall be given
to the candidate having MCA from a recognized University. It
has further been stated in the Rejoinder Affidavit that
regarding change of rule of accepting Resident Certificate six
months prior to last date of application decided on 4th
December, 2015 in the committee meeting, as at Annexure-3
to the writ petition, without any mention of the said term in
the advertisement vide Annexure-1, is contrary to the ratio
laid down by this Court in Mrs. Madhumita Das vs. State of
Odisha, reported in 100 (2005) CLT 465. Surprisingly the
committee accepted the Resident Certificate of Opposite Party
No.8 dated 11th October, 2014, which is one day later than
the last date of submission of application i.e. 10th October,
2014. The said legal acceptance of the Resident Certificate of
Opposite Party No.8 was justified by the Committee on the
plea that the Opposite Party No.8 had given an undertaking
on 9th October, 2014 that he would submit Resident
Certificate by 12th October, 2014. Similar opportunity was
not provided to any other candidates for submitting the
Resident Certificate beyond the period of last date of
submission of the application by giving any notice to the said
effect. Thus, there is flagrant violation of Article 16 of the
Constitution of India by not affording due opportunity to all
the candidates To demonstrate that the Opposite Party No.8
was not possessing the Resident Certificate issued within six
months prior to last date of application i.e. 10th October,
2014, the representation given by the Opposite Party No.8
dated 9th October, 2014 has been appended to the Rejoinder
Affidavit as Annexure-2 (same as Annexure-5 Series , at
running page 63 of the brief, filed by the State Opposite Party
No5). That apart, it has been reiterated in the Rejoinder
Affidavit that in order to benefit the Opposite Party No.8
illegally, as he has secured less marks than the Petitioner,
such mischief of changing the rule subsequent to the
advertisement for submission of Resident Certificate prior to
six months of the last date of submission of application was
introduced. Such resolution is also contrary to the statue i.e.
the revised rules for getting Resident Certificate, which
provides that the validity of the Resident Certificate is one
year from the date of issue of such certificate. Despite such
rule, the change had been resorted to by the committee mush
after the said advertisement, to deprive the petitioner from
getting the job of Secretary and wrongfully gain the Opposite
Party No.8 by accepting his Resident Certificate subsequent to
the last date of submission of application. A stand has also
been taken in the Rejoinder that the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5
have set the norms subsequent to the advertisement vide
Annexure-1. Opportunity to comply the same was given to the
Opposite Party no.8, who complied the same on submitting
the Resident Certificate on 11th October, 2014 and was
selected. But when the Petitioner asked for the information to
the Tahasildar regarding Resident Certificate of Opposite
Party No.8, it was found that the certificate was manually
issued on 11th October, 2014 in favour of Opposite Party No.8.
Subsequently another certificate as per Form No.3 of Rule 3 of
Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 was issued on
15th October, 2014. Surprisingly, the manually issued
certificate dated 11th October, 2014 issued in favour of the
Opposite Party No.8 was accepted and he was selected, even
if there is no such contemplation of issuance of the Resident
Certificate manually under the said Rules, 1984.
14. It is further stand of the Petitioner that the
Resident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar on 31st October,
2014 in his favour was not accepted even though it in terms
of the changed norms as per the decision of the Committee
and the same was prior to six months from the last date of
submission of application. The Petitioner gave a grievance
petition before the Opposite Party No.4 ( the A.R.C.S.,
Titlagarh) regarding such act of not accepting his Resident
Certificate as was being accepted in case of Opposite Party
No.8. The Sub-Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society,
being directed by the Opposite Party No-4, made an enquiry
regarding such illegalities, on 28th August, 2017 . On the said
date also the Petitioner submitted the fresh Resident
Certificate issued in his favour dated 31st October, 2014. But
the same was turned down vide Report dated 20.09.2017 ,
as at Annexure -6 to the Rejoinder, on the ground that since
the Committee has already appointed the Opposite Party No.8
and the matter is subjudice before this Court, it will be
decided as per the judgment of this Court.
15. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
reiterating the stand taken in the Writ Petition submitted, the
Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 have admitted in their Counter
Affidavit that the present Opposite Party No.8 was not
possessing the Resident Certificate as on 10th October, 2014,
which was the last date of submission of application for the
post of Secretary of Bhadra Service Cooperative Society
Limited. Drawing attention to the averments made in
paragraph-8 of the Rejoinder Affidavit, he further submitted
that though there is no such provision under the Rules, 1984
for issuance of Residence Certificate manually, but the
Tahasildar, to the reason best known to him, issued the
Resident Certificate in favour of the Opposite Party No.8
manually on 11th October, 2014 i.e. one day after the last date
of submission of application for the post of Secretary.
Subsequently another certificate as per Form No.3 of Rule-3
of Rules, 1984 was issued on 15th October, 2014, which was
entertained by the Selection Committee with an ulterior
motive to accommodate the Opposite Party No.8. Mr. Mishra
further submitted, admittedly notice was given by the
Secretary of Bhadra PACS to all the applicants, including the
present Petitioner, to attend the Office of the Assistant
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Titilagarh Circle, Titilagarh
vide Annexure-5 along with all the original documents for
verification by the Appointment Committee. The Petitioner
submitted the Resident Certificate as well as Caste Certificate
issued in his favour by the Competent Authority, both dated
31st October, 2014, so also similar certificates again issued by
the Competent Authority on 25th November, 2014. The said
certificates were issued well within six months from the last
date of submission of application for the post of Secretary of
the said Society i.e. 10th October, 2014 and those were latest
certificates, even though were beyond last date of submission
of application i.e. 10th October, 2014 as was submitting by the
Opposite Party No.8. Though the Committee accepted and
entertained the Resident Certificate of Opposite Party No.8
issued on 11.08.2014 but to the reason best known, the latest
Resident Certificate as well as Caste Certificate issued by the
Competent Authority in favour of the Petitioner was not
entertained by the authority concerned, thereby the Petitioner
was discriminated.
16. Mr. Mishra further submitted that once norms
were published in the advertisement for notice of all, the same
should not have been changed at a later stage without notice
to any of the candidates and general public and without
issuing any corrigendum for rectification of the advertisement
in question. He further submitted that there was no such
stipulation in the said advertisement. Much after the date of
advertisement, the said norm as to date of issuance of
certificate by the Competent Authority was introduced being
so decided in a meeting. His client is more meritorious than
the present Opposite Party No.8 and is possessing higher
qualification of MCA, as prescribed in the said advertisement
and had secured higher marks than the said Opposite Party.
Without any cogent reason, the said Caste Certificate as well
as Resident Certificate, both dated 31st October, 2014, which
were produced in addition to the Caste Certificate as well as
Resident Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, should
have been accepted to consider his candidature to be
appointed as Secretary of the said Society, as was done in
case of the present Opposite Party No.8, who also obtained
the Resident Certificate after the cut-off date for submission
of application for the said post of Secretary i.e. on 10th
October, 2014. Mr. Mishra further submitted that in view of
the settled position of law, it is a fit case, where this Court
should interfere and set aside the selection and appointment
of the Opposite Party No.8 as the Secretary of the Opposite
Party No.7-Society and give necessary direction to select and
appoint the present Petitioner in the said post.
17. To substantiate his submissions Mr. Mishra relied
on Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Dipali Chand
vs. Chairman, Orissa Public Service Commission and 41
others, reported in 2012 (Supp.-II) OLR 399, in Mrs.
Madhumita Das and another vs. State of Orissa and
others, reported in 100 (2005) CLT 465 and judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench in A.S. Ananya Pradhan vs.
Government of India and others, reported in 2020 (II) ILR -
CUT - 551.
18. Mr. Pattanaik, learned Additional Government
Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5, reiterating the stand
taken in the Counter Affidavit, submitted that the Caste
Certificate and Resident Certificate issued under the Rules,
1984 are valid for one year from the date of issue of such
certificates. However, the Committee, in view of the Circular
issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar dated 12th February, 2014, which governs the
rules and guidelines regarding direct recruitment of Secretary
of the S.C.S. , in its proceeding meeting held on 4th December,
2015 rightly resolved that the Resident as well as Caste
Certificate issued by the Competent Authority must have been
issued within six months preceding the last date of
submitting the application to be one of the eligibility criteria
for such selection/appointment . There is no infirmity in the
said decision taken in the meeting held under the
chairmanship of the President of Bhadra S.C.S. Mr. Pattanaik
further submitted that the Opposite Party No.8 had given a
written representation on 9th October, 2014 to the Secretary,
Bhadra S.C.S indicating therein that he has submitted his old
Caste as well as Resident Certificate so also receipt in proof of
applying for those certificates afresh and given an
undertaking therein that he will produce fresh certificate
within three days from the said date i.e. by 12th October,
2014. In terms of the said undertaking, the candidature of the
Opposite Party No.8 was accepted by the authority concerned.
Opposite Party No.8 being meritorious amongst the
candidates, was shortlisted for appointment. He was rightly
given appointment in the post of Secretary of the Opposite
Party No.7-Society. There is no infirmity or illegality in such
appointment as has been alleged by the Petitioner.
19. Though there is no specific averment in the
Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.8 with regard
to maintainability of the Writ Petition, Mr. Dalai, learned
Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.8, drawing
attention of this Court to paragraph-2 of the Counter Affidavit
filed by his client submitted, the Writ Petition is not
maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy
under Section 67 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act,
1984, shortly, OCS Act. He further submitted, instead of
approaching the Cooperative Tribunal, the Petitioner has
preferred the present Writ Petition, which is liable to be
dismissed in limine in view of the availability of alternative
remedy. He further submitted, the cause of action arose in the
year 2016. As in the meantime around seven years have
elapsed, the new Committee should have been arrayed as one
of the Opposite Parties for the purpose of maintainability of
the Writ Petition. Reiterating the stand taken in the Counter
Affidavit, Mr. Dalai further submitted, the Opposite Party No.8
has already completed more than six years of service and the
decision of the Committee is within the terms of the
advertisement with regard to Caste Certificate as well as
Resident Certificate. The Caste Certificate is valid for one year
from the date of issue of such certificate. Earlier it was valid
up to six months as per the prevailing rules. Hence,
cancellation of candidature of the Petitioner is justified in the
eye of law. He further submitted, the Appointment Committee
was justified by setting a standard in its meeting with regard
to age, resident, caste and knowledge in computer application
and decided to accept the Resident Certificate issued recently
and not to entertain those certificates which were issued
beyond preceding six months of the last date of receipt of the
application by the Society. Since the Petitioner failed to
submit his recent Resident Certificate, rightly his case was
not considered by the Appointment Committee, who is the
competent authority to take a decision in the matter of
selection of the Secretary of the Society.
20. Before dealing with the pleadings on record, so
also arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the
parties and the issue involved in the present lis, it would be
apt to reproduce below the advertisement dated 20th
September, 2014 as at Annexure-1.
"OFFICE OF THE
BHADRA SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
At : Bhadra, PO: Bhadra,Block : Saintala, Dist: Bolangir, PIN-767032
Regd. No.18/B, Dt. 10.06.1971
(Under Asst/Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Titilagarh Circle, Titilagarh)
ADVERTISEMENT
One post of Secretary of Bhadra SCS Ltd., to be filled
up by Direct Recruitment. Application form can be
obtained in persons from the Office of Bhadra SCS on
payment of Rs.100.00 from Dt.22.09.2014 to
10.10.2014 during 11 A.M. to 3 P.M. (Except Holidays)
The duly filled in application along with
required documents and money receipt in
support of deposit should be submitted in the
society office from Dt. 08.10.2014 to 10.10.2014
during 10 A.M. to 4 P.M.
Eligibility & Educational Qualification:
1. The Candidate must belong to the area of
operation of Bhadra SCS.
2. In case of non-availability of suitable candidates
within the whole area of operation of the Bhadra
SCS candidates belonging to the Saintala
Panchayat Samiti and then the Balangir District
shall be considered.
3. The candidates must be having minimum
qualification of Graduation from any
recognized University with computer
proficiency.
4. Preference shall be given to the candidate
having Higher Diploma in Cooperative
Management/M.A./M.sc./M.com/MCA/MBA/LLM/
BBA/BCA/DCMA from a recognized University.
Scale of Pay : Rs.5,200/- - 20,200/- with GP 1900/-
subject to fulfillment of conditions as laid down in the
Order No. : 18672 Dt. 31.07.2009 of the RCS, Odisha,
Bhubanswar.
Age : A Candidate must not be less than 21 years or
more than 32 years of age as on Dt. 01.04.2014. The
upper age lime shall be 37 years in respect of
candidates belonging to SC/ST/SEBC/Physically
Handicapped and Ex-Serviceman. The Upper ag limit
shall be 45 years in respect of candidates employed in
any Co-op. Societies.
N.B. : (i) Application received after stipulated
date or incompletion application shall not be
entertained.
(ii) The management of the society reserves
the right to amend/alter/cancel the recruitment at any
time without assigning reason thereof.
By Order of Management in Charge, BHADRA SCS LTD.
Sd/- Secretary, BHADRA SCS LTD."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. As the date of advertisement is missing from
Annexure-1, being desired by this Court, the copy of paper
publication was filed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
in form of an I.A. i.e. I.A. No.3118 of 2022. From the said
advertisement dated 20th September, 2014 as extracted above,
it is amply clear that application form for post of Secretary of
the Opposite Party No.7-Society has to be obtained in person
from the Office of the Society on payment of Rs.100/- from
22nd September, 2014 to 10th October, 2014 during 11 A.M. to
3 P.M. (Except Holidays). The duly filled in application along
with required documents and money receipt in support of
deposit should be submitted in the Society Office from 8th
October, 2014 to 10th October, 2014 during 10 A.M. to 4 P.M.
That apart, the eligibility and educational qualification
required to be possessed by the candidate was also detailed in
the said advertisement clearly indicated therein that the
candidate must belong to the area of operation of Bhadra
S.C.S. In case of non-availability of suitable candidates within
the whole area of operation of the Bhadra S.C.S, candidates
belonging to the Saintala Panchayat Samiti and then the
Bolangir District shall be considered. The candidates must be
having minimum qualification of graduation from any
recognized University with computer proficiency. That apart,
it was indicated in the said advertisement that preference
shall be given to the candidate having higher Diploma in
Cooperative Management / M.A. / M.com / MCA / MBA /
LLM / BBA / BCA / DCMA from any recognized University.
That apart, there was a mention regarding age of the
candidate and in the noting given below the said
advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that application
received after stipulated date or incompletion application shall
not be entertained. It is also admitted that pursuant to the
said advertisement, the Petitioner applied in the prescribed
form along with the documents required to be submitted. The
same was duly acknowledged by the Receiving Officer on 10th
October, 2014 i.e. the last date of submission of such
application. It is also admitted that from the pleadings and
documents on record that in a meeting (proceeding) under the
Chairmanship of the then President of the Society held on the
schedule date, time and place fixed as per notice dated 28th
November, 2015 of the Member Convener of the Appointment
Committee, on request, the Member Convener read out the
circular issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar dated 12th February, 2014 governing
the Rules and Guidelines regarding direct recruitment of
Secretaries of the S.C.S. Before finalizing the selection
process, the Appointment Committee unanimously decided to
select the candidate in three stages. Paragraphs-2 & 5 of the
said proceeding of Bhadra S.C.S. Ltd. dated 4th December,
2015 being germane for proper adjudication of the present lis
are reproduced below:
"2. That, in the first stage the Appointment
Committee has unanimously set a standard
keeping the Prime requisites for selection such as
qualification, Age, Residence, Caste and
Knowledge in the Computer application as per the
prescribed guideline. In order to maintain fair-
play, the appointment committee has decided
unanimously to accept the Residence and
Caste Certificates issued recently and not to
entertain those certificates which were issued
beyond six months of last date fixed for
receipt of application in the society.
5. That, the Appointment Committee has
unanimously decided to prepare a list of
candidates having minimum eligibility criteria in
the following manner.
i) As regards age, the date line i.e.
01/04/2014 will be taken to consideration as per
advertisement.
ii) As regards the candidates within
area of operation, the Residence Certificate
issued by the Competent Authority recently
i.e. 6 months prior to last date of apply.
iii) As regards relaxation of Age/Caste
Certificate issued by the Competent Authority
recently i.e. 6 months prior to 01/04/2014 will be
taken into consideration for the sake of fair-play of
the selection procedure.
iv) Minimum qualification be graduation
in any stream of recognized university.
v) Computer knowledge :- Supported
with valid certificates issued from the recognized
institutions."
(Emphasis supplied)
Though the names of the present Petitioner and
others were found place in the list of candidates belonging to
the area of operation of the said S.C.S as per the address
given in the application form, were disqualified on the ground
of non-furnishing Caste as well as Resident Certificate in
terms of the said decision of the proceeding meeting held on
4th December, 2015 i.e. almost fourteen months after the last
date of submission of application. Only the present Opposite
Party No.8 along with one Binod Jyotish were
enlisted/shortlisted as per merit for consideration of their
case for appointment as Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-
Society. The Opposite Party No.8, who allegedly secured more
marks than one Binod Jyotish and stood first, was given
appointment as Secretary of the said Society. It is further
admitted case of the parties that before such decision was
taken in the proceeding meeting dated 4th December, 2015,
the Secretary of the Society, vide notice dated 17th August,
2015 intimated all the applicants including the present
Petitioner, so also Opposite Party No.8 to attend the Office of
the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Society, Titilagarh Circle,
Titilagarh along with all the original documents for
verification by the Appointment Committee. On the said date
both the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.8 were
possessing Resident Certificate issued by the Competent
Authority i.e, the Tahasildar of the locality after 10th October,
2014, which was the last date fixed for submission of the
application for the post of Secretary of the said society as per
advertisement. The Resident Certificate produced by the
Petitioner is dated 31st October, 2014, whereas the said
certificate produced by the Opposite Party No.8 is dated 11th
October, 2014. Further, as per the pleadings made in the
Rejoinder Affidavit, so also the documents appended thereto,
it is also well proved that the certificate produced by the
Opposite Party No.8 in terms of his undertaking has been
issued manually by the authority concerned is dated
11.10.2014, whereas the actual computerized Resident
Certificate in the prescribed form was issued by the same
authority on 15th October, 2015. It is also admitted fact that
till the proceeding meeting of the Bhadra S.C.S. Ltd. was held
on 4th December, 2015 for selection/appointment of the
Secretary of the said Society, pursuant to advertisement dated
20th September, 2014. A decision was taken on the said date
to prepare a list of candidates putting one of the conditions
that the candidates residing within the area of operation,
must possess the Resident Certificate issued by the
competent Authority recently i.e. six months prior to the last
date of making application to be one of the eligibility criteria
as extracted above. On the very same day the Petitioner and
similarly placed others were debarred from their
candidatureship without any intimation, whereas the
Opposite Party No.8, being similarly placed, having no
Resident Certificate as on 10th October, 2014 i.e. the last date
of submitting such application, was short listed by the
Committee along with one Binod Jyotish and was declared to
be selected as the Secretary of Bhadra S.C.S. It is also the
admitted case that after taking such decision, the
Appointment Committee never issued any corrigendum to the
said effect pursuant to the advertisement as at Annexure-1
clarifying therein that the candidate has to produce the
Resident Certificate issued by the Competent Authority issued
within six months prior to the last date of submitting the
application. Further, no intimation was given to the Petitioner
informing him about the reason of non-consideration of his
candidatureship for the post of Secretary of the said Service
Cooperative Society, so also the final outcome of the said
selection process. Further, though as per Rule, Resident
Certificate is valid for one year, contrary to the same, it was
resolved that the said certificate issued recently i.e. six
months prior to the last date of submission of application will
be acceptable. The compilation as at Anexure-4, discloses the
list of candidates who were qualified or disqualified for the
next phase of selection. From the said document it is well
evident that one Binod Jyotish was shown to be qualified
along with the Opposite Party No.8, though his date of
issuance of Resident Certificate has been indicated as
"01.11.2013", which is admittedly beyond six months
preceding 10th October, 2014, which was the last date of
submission of application. Similarly, in the said compilation,
it has been indicated that the date of issuance of Resident
Certificate in favour of the Opposite Party No.8 is
"11.10.2014", i.e. after 10.10.2014. Though the Petitioner
gave a grievance petition to the President of the Society
highlighting the said illegality and irregularity made by the
Selection Committee, the same remained unattended. It has
also been demonstrated by the Petitioner that on the date of
verification of original documents i.e. on 27.08.2015, he
produced fresh Resident as well as Caste Certificate, both
dated 31.10.2014. Though Opposite Party No.8's certificate
dated 11.10.2014 was entertained by the Authority, to the
reason best known to the Selection Committee, the
candidature of the Petitioner was rejected. To justify
acceptance as such certificate submitted by the Opposite
Party No.8 belatedly, a letter dated 9th October, 2014 has
been annexed to the Counter Affidavit, as at running page 63,
vide which a request has been made by the Opposite Party
No.8 to the Secretary of the Society seeking for three days
time to produce the Resident Certificate. Further, the
receipt/acknowledgement dated 9th October, 2014, as at
running page 64, well demonstrates that though the Opposite
Party No.8 applied for the said post on 9.10.2014 , on the very
same day he also applied for Resident Certificate and the
expected date of delivery of resident certificate has been
indicated in the said receipt to be "24th October, 2014".
22. Law is well settled that the selection process for
appointment to a post starts from the date the applications
are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission
of application, has a right to be considered against the said
vacancy provided, he/she fulfils the requisite qualification or
eligibility criteria. Therefore, the eligibility criteria as it stands
on the date of submission of applications, is to be applied.
23. In Dipali Chand (supra) vide paragraph-15 it was
held as follows:
"15. There can be no dispute to the settled
legal proposition that the selection process starts
from the date the applications are invited and any
person eligible on the last date of submission of the
application, has a right to be considered against
the said vacancy provided he/she fulfils the
requisite qualification or eligibility criteria.
Therefore, the eligibility criteria as it stands
on the last date of submission of the
applications is to be applied.
A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court,
In Dr. M.V.Nair v. Union of India and othrs,
(1993) 2 SCC 429, held as under:
"It is well settled that suitability
and eligibility have to be considered with
reference to the last date for receiving the
applications, unless, of course, the
notification calling for applications itself
specifies such a date."
In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P.,
Allahabad & Anr. V. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723,
the Supreme Court, after considering a large
number of its earlier judgments, held that
eligibility conditions should be examined as
on last date for receipt of applications by the
Commission.
In Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director,
Punjab Instructions, Punjab & Anr., 1995
(Suppl.) 4 SCC 706, the Supreme Court held:
"It is to be seen that when the
recruitment is sought to be made, the last
date has been fixed for receipt of the
applications, such of those candidates,
who possessed of all the
qualifications as on that date, alone
are eligible to apply for and to be
considered for recruitment according
to Rules."
In Ashok Kumr Shrma & Ors. V.
Chander Sekhar & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 18, the
Supreme Court held that where applications are
called for prescribing a particular date as the last
date for filing the applications, the eligibility of
the candidates shall have to be adjudged with
reference to that date and that date alone
and it is a well established propositions of
law."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. Similarly in Madhumita Das (supra) the Division
of this Court, vide paragraph-28 held as follows:
"28. Although under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, right to equality has been
guaranteed by providing therein that the State
shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India but the Constitution makers have
taken special care of the citizens of India in matters
relating to employment. Article 14 does not
discriminate a non-citizen with a citizen as the
word "person" has been used therein, while
Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 16 is
available only for the citizens. Clause (1) of the
Article 16 is available only for the citizens. Clause
(1) of the Article 16 provides that there shall be
equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State. Therefore, if an advertisement
is issued inviting applications to fill up the
posts, the citizens should be provided full
knowledge of the procedure for selection and
the norms fixed for the same. If the norms are
changed subsequently, without any notice to
them, how can it be said that the citizens
have got equality of opportunity in relation to
employment? In the instant case, the norms fixed
in the advertisement were scaled down to the
extent that, instead of 50% minimum qualifying
mark in the written test for being called for viva
voce test, the same was lowered down to that of
35% marks in each paper and 40% in aggregate.
Had the citizens knowledge about the change of
norms, there would have been possibility that the
prospective candidates, who did not intend to
apply for selection just because of the reason that
the minimum qualifying marks in the written
examination were higher, i.e., 50%, in each paper,
and there was uncertainty of number of vacancies
also, would have thought that on liberalisation of
norms they would be able to compete and as such
they would have applied for the post after the
change of norms. Non-providing of knowledge
about such change of norms amounted to
deprivation of the prospective candidates
from participating in the process of selection
and was thus violative of Article 16 of the
Constitution.
It will be pertinent to mention here that not
only the minimum qualifying marks were lowered
down, but some other norms were also changed
i.e., cut off marks of the viva voce test were fixed on
the date of interview/viva voce test and also it was
further added that the academic career of the
candidates was also to be taken into consideration.
On perusal of the result sheet, it was found that
apart from 200 marks in the written examination
and 30 marks in the interview which was shown in
the advertisement, 10 marks more were allocated
for length of practice and career marking for which
no decision was taken by the Committee/Full Court
and, therefore, instead of total maximum of 230
marks, the selection was made on the basis of
maximum 240 marks for which no information was
given to the citizens/prospective candidates and,
as such the same was violative of Article 16 of the
Constitution.
In the recent decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service
Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors., reported in
2005 (2) Supreme 615, the Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission had initially advertised for
recruitment to 8 posts of Asst. Public Relation
Officers. Subsequently 7 more vacancies were
advertised. Therefore, the recruitment was made
for 15 vacancies. The selection was finalized on
2.7.1996. During the currency of the wait list the
competent authority again notified 14 more
vacancies on 14.4.1997 to be filled up by the
candidates from the wait list. In that case, the Apex
Court held that there were two principles in service
laws, which were indisputable. Firstly, there could
not have been appointment beyond the advertised
number; and secondly, the norms of selection
could not have been altered after the selection
process had started. Paragraph 16 of the
judgment of the Apex Court is reproduced
hereunder:
"The High Court has committed an error
in holding that the amended rule was
operative. As has been fairly conceded by
Learned Counsel for the applicant-
respondent No. 1 it was unamended rule,
which was applicable. Once a process of
selection starts, the prescribed selection
criteria cannot be changed. The logic
behind the same is based on fair play. A
person who did not apply because a
certain criteria e.g., minimum percentage
of marks can make a legitimate
grievance, in case the same is lowered,
that he could have applied because he
possessed the said percentage. Rules
regarding qualification for appointment if
amended during continuance of the
process of selection do not affect the
same. That is because every statute or
statutory rule is prospective unless it is
expressly or by necessary implication
made to have retrospective effect. Unless
there are words in the statute or in the
Rules showing the intention to affect
existing rights the rule must be held to be
prospective. If the Rule is expressed in a
language which is fairly capable of either
interpretation it ought to be considered as
prospective only."
In the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, and the law laid down by the
Apex Court, this Court has come to the
conclusion that once selection process was
started the norms fixed in the advertisement
could not have been changed and if they were
liable to be changed then the same should
have been published in the like manner in
which initial advertisement was published.
Non-publication of the norms changed
subsequently after starting of the selection
process was violative of Article 16 of the
Constitution and thus is not sustainable in
the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is of opinion
that the result of selection in respect of those
opposite parties who had secured 50% or more
marks in the written test and were declared
selected should not be disturbed. However, in
respect of those opposite parties who had secured
less than 50% marks in the written examination,
their selection and appointments are liable to be
quashed and further a Writ of Mandamus is liable
to be issued to the authorities concerned to
consider the case of the candidates, who had
secured 50% or more marks in the written test and
to declare their result after adding viva voce marks
to their marks in the written examination, and
excluding the marks awarded to them by Selection
Committee for length of practice and for academic
career since this norm was not there in the
advertisement."
(Emphasis supplied)
25. In A.S. Ananya Pradhan (supra), the coordinate
Bench, vide paragraph Nos.19 to 23 which are extracted
below, observed as follows:
"19. Keeping in view the purpose of
education, as discussed above, vis-à-vis objectives
of the scheme of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, as
enumerated in the prospectus itself, in order to
achieve such objectives steps had been taken for
admission of the students for the session 2020 in
Class-VI by holding a test in consonance with the
conditions stipulated in the prospectus itself. As
has been stated, the petitioner was eligible to make
an application and pursuant to the advertisement
the petitioner, having satisfied the requirement
thereof, applied for admission in Class-VI. So far as
reservation of seats is concerned, nothing had been
mentioned in the prospectus with regard to
reservation for OBC category students. Basing on
the conditions stipulated in the prospectus itself,
the petitioner applied for admission in Class-VI
course of Navodaya Vidyalaya and appeared the
test scheduled to be held on 11.01.2020. By that
time, the notice issued on 31.03.2020 making
provision for reservation for OBC category students
had not seen the light of the day nor could the
same be read as part of the prospectus to extend
the benefit to OBC category students. Pursuant to
the prospectus issued if the students had
applied for and they had been considered and
called upon to appear the test, consequently,
when the game had already started, by
issuing a notice on 31.03.2020 in the midst of
selection process the rule of game should not
have been changed.
20. In Kishor Kumar (supra), the apex
Court, while interpreting Rule 15(2) of U.P.
Pharmacists Services Rules, 1980, held that
having recruitment process started,
norms/principles/ rules applicable cannot be
changed during pendency of selection process
to disadvantage of those candidates who were
denied appointment by virtue of same rules,
and directed that the candidates to be appointed in
order of their inter se seniority as per vacancies
available in each year in terms of pre-existing
practice.
21. In Mrs. Madhumita Das (supra),
while dealing with a matter relating to recruitment
of Ad-hoc Addl. District Judges under the Odisha
Judicial Service (Special Scheme) Rules, 2001, the
question in regard to change of norms published in
the advertisement, without notice to the candidates
and the general public, was under consideration.
The process of selection was conducted in the
changed norms. Hence, the Division Bench of
this Court held the action so taken was
violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of
India, reason being that once norms were
published in the advertisement for notice of
all, whether the same could be changed at a
later stage without notice to any of the
candidates and general public and without
issuing any corrigendum to the advertisement
in question. Therefore, the Division Bench of
this Court held that once advertisement was
issued to fill up a post in any office under the
State, then it is the duty of the recruiting
authority to give necessary information to all
in a precise and clear manner.
22. In Bharat Ch. Jena (supra), the
Division Bench of this Court held that once the
selection process was started, the norms fixed
in the advertisement could not have been
changed and if they were liable to be
changed, then the same should have been
published in the like manner in which initial
advertisement was published. Non-publication
of the norms changed subsequently after
starting of the selection process was violative
of Article 16 of the Constitution and thus is
not sustainable in the eye of law.
This Court has also taken similar view in
Subhaya Prusty (supra), Dr. Smrutisudha
Pattnaik (supra) and Suchitra Sethi (supra).
23. Applying the ratio, as discussed above, to
the present context, there cannot be any second
opinion with regard to law laid down by the apex
Court as well as this Court and the same can also
be applicable to the present context, in view of the
fact that once the process of selection started for
admission in Class-VI of Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Bagudi, Balasore pursuant to
prospectus in Annexure-1, the same cannot be
changed or altered pursuant to subsequent notice
issued under Annexure-3 dated 31.03.2020, which
is violative of Article- 16 of the Constitution of
India."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. In view of the factual scenario and the legal
proposition as detailed above, this Court is of the considered
view that the decision taken in the proceeding meeting dated
4th December, 2015, which was almost after 14 months of the
advertisement made, being never communicated to the
Petitioner and similarly placed others, is illegal and arbitrary.
This Court is of the further view that since the Opposite Party
No.8's case was considered for appointment to the said post of
Secretary of the Opposite Party No.7-Society, who was not
having the Resident Certificate as on the last date of making
such application, it is a clear case of discrimination and
glaring example of favouritism and being bad in law, is liable
to be quashed. Further, this Court is of the view that though
one Binod Jyotish was also not possessing the Resident
Certificate in terms of the said resolution of the Committee,
the same being dated 01.11.2013, only for the purpose that
there was another candidate to compete with the Opposite
Party No-8, falsely he was shown to be qualified for
consideration of his case for the post of Secretary of the
Opposite Party No.7-Society. Hence, the selection of Opposite
Party No.8 in terms of the decision of the proceeding of the
Bhadra S.C.S. Ltd, so also his appointment as the Secretary
of Opposite Party No.7-Society, as detailed above, being illegal
and unjustified, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the
same is hereby quashed.
27. Needles to mention here that, it is open for the
authority concerned to fill-up the post of Secretary of
Opposite Party No.7-Society by making a fresh advertisement
clearly indicating therein the pre-conditions/criteria a
candidate should possess as per the guidelines of the State, if
any, so also prevalent rules as to issuance as well as validity
of cast and resident certificate and take necessary steps in
accordance with law.
28. With the above observations, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to
cost.
...................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 31st day of October, 2023/Prasant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 02-Nov-2023 16:50:26
