Sanjaya Kumar Mallik vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 11742 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.A. No.1739 of 2022

Sanjaya Kumar Mallik                    .....                              Appellant
                                                            Dr.J.K.Lenka, Advocate
                                        Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                           Respondents
                                                             Mr.Arnab Behera, ASC

                  CORAM:
                      THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                      JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                                             ORDER

27.09.2023 Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

03.

2. Heard Dr.J.K.Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and also heard Mr.Arnab Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

appearing for the State-respondents.

3. The appellant, having noticed that his secured marks has been

shown inadvertently lower than what he had actually secured, for

which his name was not sponsored by opposite party No.4, so he had

approached this Court by filing the writ petition and has urged this

Court to appoint him in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the basis

of his passing out year 2008 in terms of the Government policy

decision and his securing the marks, much higher than the last person

who had made appointed as the diploma holder engineer from the panel

sent by opposite party No.4.

4. The learned Single Judge by order dated 22.11.2022 passed in

W.P. (C) (OAC) No.3821 of 2016 has dismissed the writ petition,

observing that the issue with regard to sponsoring candidates from the

panel has been already decided by this Court, in its judgment rendered

in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2645 of 2014 and other cases in the batch.

5. Dr. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has quite

emphatically contended that the learned Single Judge has not

appreciated the core of the challenge. The challenge is apparent and

simple. The appellant has annexed the mark sheet of the State Council

for Technical Education and Vocational Training to show the total

marks the appellant secured in the examination. Out of total mark of

3000, the appellant got 2223 marks and as such, the percentage of

marks is 74.10%, not 64.39% as shown against the name of the

appellant at the time of sponsoring the names to the departments.

Dr.Lenka, learned counsel has taken us to the combined tabulation

sheet, the part of Annexure-3 to this Memorandum of Appeal. It had

been contended by the State-Respondents before the learned Single

Judge that the candidates at Serial No.1-35 of that list was sponsored

and appointed. It is evident that the person at Serial No.35 secured the

total mark 2487, i.e., 66.31%. Considering the marks reflected in the

appellant's mark sheet, Annexure-4 to the Memorandum of Appeal, the

appellant ought to have been placed at Serial No.5 of the combined list

as the person in Serial No.4, Serial No.5 and Serial No.6 have got the

following percentage of marks: serial No.5-73.45%, Serial No.6-

73.35% and serial No.7-72.72%. By mistake, the petitioner's

percentage has been shown lower than what he had secured and hence,

his name did not figure in the proper position, i.e., Serial No.5 in that

combined panel.

6. Mr. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has fairly submitted

that this is an error apparent on the face of the records. At the same

time, Mr. Behera has submitted that the system of sponsoring the

candidates was introduced by the Orissa Diploma Engineers Service

(Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service), Rules 2012, which

came into force with effect from 01.02.2014. But the selection process

with which we are concerned had taken place in the year 2014 and

before the said rule came into force. As such, the said objection has no

merit.

7. The writ petition was filed in the year 2016 by the petitioner

only after knowledge of the said mistake. The State is under obligation

to correct the record reflecting the percentage of marks what the

appellant had actually secured and to incorporate his name in the

proper place of the combined panel.

8. For all purposes and for ends of justice, the appellant's position

in the combined merit list shall be at Serial No.5 showing the

percentage of marks secured by him, i.e. 74.10%. The petitioner shall

be appointed within a period of 30 days from today in the post of

Junior Engineer (Civil) with effect from 13.06.2014 when the person at

Serial No.5 of the said combined merit list was appointed. As the

petitioner did not work in the post even though he will be appointed

with effect from 13.6.2014, the period between the date of appointment

and the date of the order of appointment shall be treated notional for

purpose of pay and allowances but his pay shall be fixed on 13.06.2014

and issued thereon, his pay and allowance be actually paid from the

date of the order of the appointment. Consequent thereupon, we set

aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and allow this

Writ Appeal in the above terms.

9. It is also directed that the panel of names shall be reframed and

published within three months from today, if the person being at the

old serial no.5, as appointed on 13.6.2014 has received any service

benefit in the meanwhile, the appellant shall also be given the same

benefits in the similar manner, as noted above. No order as to costs.

(S.Talapatra) Chief Justice

(Savitri Ratho) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Bichi Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 30-Sep-2023 14:42:05