Orissa High Court
Nilli Kumari Bhola vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 28365 of 2023
(An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
Nilli Kumari Bhola ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mrs. D. Mahapatra
Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. T. Pattanayak
Additional Standing Counsel
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
8th September, 2023
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated
27.07.2023 passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Sambalpur whereby her joining report was not accepted.
Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that
the petitioner's father, late Subash Chandra Bholo, an
Assistant Driver in the office of S.P., Ganjam at Chatrapur
died in harness on 28.08.2004 after meeting with an
accident. He left behind his widow and four daughters
including the present petitioner and a son. In view of the
sudden mishap, the petitioner submitted her application for
appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on
04.09.2012 which was duly forwarded by the S.P. Ganjam to
the Collector, Ganjam for proper inquiry. The inquiry was
conducted and all other necessary formalities were complied
with. It was thereby found that the petitioner is entitled to be
appointed under the R.A. Scheme. Ultimately by order dated
27.07.2023, it was informed that the D.G. police had
accorded approval for appointment of two persons including
the petitioner against the post of Junior Clerk in existing
vacancies under the R.A. Scheme. Further, by letter dated
03.08.2023, the petitioner was directed to appear before the
Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur, on 10.08.2023 along
with original documents/testimonials. However, when she
appeared before the S.P. of Sambalpur, she was not allowed
to join as some discrepancy in her name was noticed. It was
found that the petitioner had married in the meantime and
therefore being a married daughter, she was not entitled to
be appointed under the R.A. Scheme.
2. Heard Ms. D. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. T. Pattanaik, learned Additional Standing
counsel for the State.
3. In course of hearing, Ms. Mohapatra has cited upon a
judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Basanti Nayak vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C). (OAC)
No. 2669 of 2008) wherein it was held that the change of
marital status of a person otherwise entitled to the benefit
under R.A. Scheme can have no consequences. Similar view
was also taken by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Smt. Gayatri Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha
(W.P.(C). (OA) No. 3681 of 2013) relying on the decision
rendered in Basanti Nayak (supra). The position that emerges
is, change of marital status after submission of application
for appointment under the R.A. Scheme cannot deprive the
person concerned from the benefit of such appointment. Only
because a daughter gets married after submitting an
application for appointment under the R.A. Scheme does not
disqualify her for such appointment.
4. Mr.Pattanaik, learned State counsel has fairly
submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by the ratio of Basanti Nayak(supra).
5. In such view of the matter, the writ application is
allowed. The Impugned order dated 10.08.2023(Annexure-8)
is hereby quashed. The concerned authorities are directed to
accept the joining report of the petitioner forthwith.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
The 8th September, 2023/ Deepak
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 12-Sep-2023 20:07:01
