Orissa High Court
Nilima Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22495 of 2016
(Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Nilima Mohanty ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Banshidhar Satapathy,
Advocate.
-versus-
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
25.4.2025.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition
with the following prayer;
"In the facts and circumstances of the
case, the humble petitioner fervently
prays this Hon'ble Court to be graciously
pleased to issue notice to the Opp.
Parties, call of relevant records and after
hearing the counsel of parties, issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding Opp.Parties, particularly to
the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zillaparishad, Khurda to issue
engagement order in favour of the
Petitioner engaging her as Sikshya
Sahayak in terms of the decision of this
Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of
Chandramani Jena and others vrs. State
of Odisha and others reported in 2007(II)
OLR 577 within a stipulated date."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, having
B.A. qualification and being C.T. trained, applied for
engagement as Sikshya Sahayak pursuant to
advertisement issued in the year 2006. Her name
found place in the merit list drawn up by the
authorities. Though engagement orders were issued in
favour of some selected candidates, no such order was
issued in favour of the petitioner mainly on the ground
that having married to a person of Mahanga Block, she
was no longer a resident of Tangi Block. The
Petitioner's claim was that despite marriage she was
residing in her father's house under Tangi Block. She
had obtained resident certificate to such effect and had
produced the same along with her application. In the
meantime, this Court, in the case of Chandramani
Jena and others vrs. State of Odisha and others;
2007 (II) OLR 577, held that no person could be
deprived of getting employed on the ground of
disqualification due to residence. The petitioner's claim
is that her case is squarely covered by the ratio
decided in the aforementioned case. Further, she
submitted multiple representations to the authorities
but the same were not considered. On such facts, the
Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the prayer as
quoted above.
3. The stand of the State, as evident from its
counter is that the Petitioner had applied for the post
of Sikshya Sahayak for Tangi Block unit and had
produced a residential certificate as proof of residence.
Subsequently, complaints were received against the
Petitioner and other candidates for having submitted
fake residential certificates for which the District
Selection Committee in its meeting held on 26.11.2006
decided to refer the residential certificates of all the
candidates to the respective Tahasildars for
verification. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the
Tahasildar, Tangi, vide letter dated 6.2.2007, informed
that the resident certificates of all the applicants along
with the Petitioners had been reviewed under Rule 7 of
Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984 and
cancelled as not genuine. As such, the application form
of the Petitioner became incomplete and she became
ineligible for which her candidature was cancelled vide
Notification dated 16.4.2007.
4. As regards Chandramani Jena's case, it is
stated that the Petitioner's candidature was cancelled
not because she belongs to any other Block but
because of supply of fake residential certificate. In
several similar cases filed by persons like the
petitioner, this Court has refused to interfere.
5. Heard Mr. B. Satapathy, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State.
6. Mr. Satpathy would argue that the resident
certificate of the Petitioner was never cancelled to her
knowledge as no show cause notice was ever issued to
her. Even otherwise, the fact of residence of a
candidate is no longer relevant in view of the ratio
decided in Chandramani Jena (supra). The
Petitioner was duly selected and placed at Sl. No.110
in the Select List in respect of Tangi block. Despite
marriage to a person of Mahanga Block, she has been
residing in her parents' house in Tangi Block.
7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate, would submit that the Petitioner has come
up with a stale claim inasmuch as her candidature
was cancelled way back in the year 2007. Moreover,
such cancellation was not because she did not belong
to Tangi block but because she had submitted three
fake residential certificates. She never challenged the
cancellation of the candidature at the relevant time
and acted only after the judgment passed in
Chandramani Jena's case, for which she is nothing
but a fence-sitter and hence, not entitled to any relief.
8. The facts are not disputed. The fact of
cancellation of the petitioner's candidature has also
not been specifically disputed. Such cancellation, for
whatever reason, was effected way back in the year
2007. There is not a whisper in the Writ Petition as to
why the petitioner remained silent for all these years.
9. Coming to the grounds cited by the State, it is
trite law that submission of fake residential certificate
amounts to playing fraud, which can never be
countenanced in law. The decision to cancel the
residential certificate of the Petitioner, per se, has not
been challenged. As it appears the Petitioner after
remaining silent for all these years, suddenly woke up
from her slumber upon passing of the judgment in
Chandramani Jena (supra) on 8.1.2015. Be it noted
that the Writ Petition was filed on 20.12.2016. It is
obvious that the Petitioner wants to take the benefit of
the case of Chandramani Jena, but for the reasons
indicated above, her candidature not having been
rejected on the ground of disqualification due to
residence, the ratio of Chandramani Jena has no
application. Moreover, there is considerable force in
the submission of the State counsel that the petitioner
is nothing but a fence-sitter and hence, not entitled to
any relief.
10. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court
finds no merit in the Writ Petition, which is therefore
dismissed.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 29-Apr-2025 11:57:32
