i. To direct the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to
publish the provisional merit list and after
considering objection if any publish the final
merit list for the post of GRS in Bhadrak district
in response to Advertisement under Annexure-
ii. To direct the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to
appoint the petitioner as GRS in Bhadrak
district.
iii. To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all
financial and consequential benefits flowing
from the appointment.
And pass such other order/orders as may be
deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
2. The facts of the case are that an advertisement was
issued on 23.12.2022 by the Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak inviting
applications from candidates for contractual engagement as
Gram Rojgar Sevak in Bhadrak district. Seventy two posts were
notified out of which twelve were reserved for SC candidates
including four for women. The petitioner was one of the
applicants. In the list of applicants published in the website of
the Bhadrak district office on 08.05.2023, his name found place
at Sl. No.1482. As per clause 10 of the advertisement the
provisional select list was to be prepared in the ratio of 1:3
based on merit and accordingly, the final merit list was to be
published. However, no such provisional or final merit list was
prepared but some candidates received telephonic calls for
verification of documents on 25.05.2023. The query made by
the petitioner with regard to his candidature was not answered
satisfactorily by the CDO-cum-EO, Zilla Parishad, Bhadrak. The
petitioner claims to be coming within eight candidates of SC
Category. On such facts, he has filed this writ application with
the prayer quoted above.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party Nos.
2 & 3 inter alia, stating that 4018 candidates had applied
pursuant to the advertisement, out of whom 573 applications
were rejected. A detailed combined provisional merit list was
prepared wherein the name of the petitioner found place at Sl.
No.172. The petitioner secured 74% marks in 10 +2 and he was
placed at Sl. No.20 of the provisional merit list of SC Category.
The candidates were called for the computer test in the ratio of
1:2. As such, 24 SC Category candidates were called. The claim
of the petitioner that he comes within 8 vacancies made for SC
Category Male is not correct. It is however, admitted that the
final merit list was not uploaded in the official website. It is
further stated that since the petitioner secured less percentage
of marks in 10 +2 his name does not find place in the final
merit list of the selected candidates.
4. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating that as per
clause 10 of the advertisement, the provisional list of selected
candidates shall be prepared on the ratio of 1:3 based on merit
as per vacancies. From the provisional/final merit list, it is seen
that there is serious discrepancy with regard to total marks in
+2 examination inasmuch as for some candidates it is
mentioned as 3750 while for others it is mentioned as 3700.
The authorities have gone beyond the provisions of the
advertisement. Further, the persons who were selected under
SC Category from 1 to 8, did not figure in the combined merit
list.
5. A reply affidavit has been filed in answer to the rejoinder.
It is stated that since the no. of candidates was more, the merit
list was prepared in the ratio of 1:2 instead of 1:3. The
combined list of candidates was published in the district
website inviting objections. The Joint Director, I & PR
Department was requested to publish the said notice in two
widely circulated Odia Dailies and in one English Daily. The list
in which the petitioner's name finds place at Sl. No.172 is the
merit list of UR candidates which was prepared after deducting
the list of candidates likely to get engagement as per the
category wise vacancy list i.e., first 12 candidates under UR(F),
8(F-03) from SEBC and 12 (F-04) from SC Category. For such
reason, the candidates of SC Category from SI Nos.1 to 8 were
not mentioned.
6. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State.
7. Ms. Pattanaik would argue that when the terms of the
advertisement clearly prescribed that the provisional merit list
was to be prepared by calling candidates in the ratio of 1:3, the
authorities could have been unilaterally change the same to 1:2.
Secondly, the merit list is erroneous in view of the fact that, the
total marks of +2 is different for different candidates.
8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik would submit that the merit list was
prepared by adhering to the principles of reservation as
stipulated in the advertisement. Since the number of candidates
was more, it was decided to call the candidates for appearing in
computer test in the ratio of 1: 2. There being only 12 vacancies
in the SC category, the petitioner was found to have secured
much less than the last person selected and therefore, even if,
he would have been called, the basis of selection being 10 +2
marks, he would not have qualified. He further submits that as
per the advertisement, the eligibility condition is 10 +2 or its
equivalent as declared by the Board of Secondary Education
(BSE). In the process, different candidates having passed in
different courses were held to be eligible. The total marks
depends on the course but the same is irrelevant since it is the
percentage of marks secured out of the total marks, which is
relevant and which has been taken into consideration.
9. This Court finds that insofar as the petitioner is
concerned, the relevant category is SC in which 12 vacancies
were notified. Out of 12, 8 vacancies were earmarked for males
and 4 for females. The petitioner is therefore, to be considered
against the first 8 vacancies occurring in the SC Category(Male).
Viewed from the above angle, it is seen that the petitioner
secured 74% marks in the CHSE (10 +2) examination and was
placed at Sl. No.20 of the provisional/final merit list. The
candidate placed at Sl. No.8 secured 77.50 percent. So even if,
the petitioner would have been called to attend the computer
test, he would still not have qualified inasmuch as 11 persons
were above him in the merit list.
10. As regards the mention of different total marks in respect
of different candidates, this Court finds the explanation offered
by the State Counsel quite plausible. The total marks depends
on the particular course pursued by the concerned candidate.
Since some courses were held to be equivalent to 10 +2 and the
selection of candidates from such courses was based on the
percentage secured by them, the total marks, per se, become
irrelevant. As regards the allegation regarding non-publication
of the merit list, it has not been demonstrated as to how the
same has caused any prejudice to the petitioner. This is being
said for all the more reason that the petitioner was found to
have secured less marks than persons who were selected.
11. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court finds
nothing wrong in the method of selection adopted by the
Opposite Party authorities so as to be persuaded to interfere
therewith.
12. In the result, the writ application, being devoid of merit is
therefore, dismissed.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 25th of April, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 29-Apr-2025 13:06:18
