[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bimal Kumar Samal vs Block Development Officer on 19 December, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17456 of 2015
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of
India.
---------------
Bimal Kumar Samal ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
Block Development Officer, ...... Opp. Parties
Jeypore & another
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_____________________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : M/s. J.R. Dash, K.L. Dash
S.C. Samal & N. Sahoo,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. N Patnaik
[Addl. Government Advocate]
Mr. D.R. Bhokta & N. Afreen,
Advocates
___________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
19.12.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The Petitioner has filed this writ
application with the following prayer:-
"Under the above circumstances, the
petitioner humbly prays that, the Hon'ble Court would
be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice
of Rule NISI, calling upon the opposite parties to show
cause as to why Annexure-8 shall not be quashed
and the appointment of the petitioner, in the said post
of "Jogan Sahayak" in Tankua Grampanchayat,
jeypore shall not be granted and upon their showing
no cause/insufficient cause, make the said Rule
absolute;
And pass any other appropriate
order/orders as this Hon'ble court feels just and
proper, for the ends of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner
shall as in duty bound every pray."
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that
pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.03.2015 published
by the BDO, Jeypore inviting applications for engagement of
Jogana Sahayak in twenty two Gram Panchayats, the
Petitioner submitted his application along with all relevant
documents for Tankua Gram Panchayat. In the status
report of the candidates, it was revealed that there were
three applicants including the Petitioner for Tankua Gram
Panchayat. The Petitioner having secured 56% marks was
the most meritorious among the three candidates. However,
the Opposite Party No.2, who had secured only 41.60%
marks was selected. The Petitioner's candidature was
rejected on the ground that he is a resident of another
district. It is contended by the Petitioner that his father, who
originally belongs to the Jajpur district was an employee of
the erstwhile Odisha State Electricity Board at Jeypore for
which he had migrated from his native district to the district
of Koraput about 40 years back and settled there
permanently. The Petitioner was born at Jeypore on
26.12.1983. He was educated at all levels at Jeypore. The
Petitioner's father acquired a Government lease-hold plot
under Tankua Gram Panchayat. The Petitioner is also a
voter of the area and participates in elections at all levels.
On such facts, it is contended that the rejection of the
candidature of the Petitioner by treating him a resident of
other district is entirely bad in law.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the BDO
(Opposite Party No.1), who, while admitting all the
averments made in the writ petition, stated that the
advertisement dated 25.03.2015, stipulated that the
candidate must be permanent resident of the Gram
Panchayat for which he is an applicant. Though the
Petitioner was issued with a residential certificate by the
Tahasildar, Jeypore on 16.07.2013, the same carries an
endorsement that he is a native of Jajpur district and the
family ordinarily resides at village Jagannathpur in the
district of Koraput. Therefore, he was not selected as he
does not fulfill the requirement indicated in the
advertisement.
4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the selected
candidate (Opposite Party No.2). It is stated that he was
selected after undergoing a due selection procedure and
having been appointed vide order dated 19.05.2015, has
been continuing as such. It is further stated that the
Petitioner being a native of the district of Jajpur, his
candidature was rightly not considered and therefore there
is no illegality in the selection of the private Opposite Party.
5. Heard Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned AGA for the State and
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No.2.
6. Mr. Dash would argue that as per the
advertisement, a candidate is required to be a permanent
resident of the Gram Panchayat for which he has applied.
The Petitioner is a resident of Jagannathpur village, which
comes under Tankua Gram Panchayat. A resident certificate
showing his residence as such was issued by the
Tahasildar, Jeypore on 16.07.2013. Only because there is
an endorsement that he is a native of the district of Jajpur
does not mean that he is not to be treated as a permanent
resident of Jagannathpur in Koraput district. Mr. Dash
relies upon judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court rendered in the case of Pratima Mohapatra v. Sub-
Collector, Balasore and others, reported in 2024 (II) OLR
457 to submit that the Petitioner being a resident of
Jagannathpur village since 1984, is to be treated as a
permanent resident. He being a native of Jajpur is
inconsequential. Mr. Dash concludes his argument by
submitting that the Petitioner being the most meritorious
among the three candidates ought to have been selected.
7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned AGA would argue that it
is not disputed that the Petitioner secured the highest
marks and also that he is a resident of Jagannathpur
village, which comes under Tankua Gram Panchayat.
However, the advertisement requires that the candidate
must be permanent resident of the said Gram Panchayat.
Since the Petitioner admittedly is a native of Jajpur district,
he cannot be treated as permanent resident of Koraput
district, even though he may have been residing there
temporarily.
8. Mr. D.R. Bhokta, while adopting the arguments of
the State Counsel additionally submits that the Petitioner
not having fulfilled the eligibility criteria was rightly not
selected whereas his client was selected after undergoing a
due selection procedure. Moreover, his client has been
discharging his duties since 2015 without any blemish.
Therefore, according to Mr. Bhokta, the engagement of his
client should not be interfered with.
9. From the rival contentions, it is evident that the
facts of the case are not disputed. The only question that
falls for consideration is the implication of the endorsement
made in the resident certificate of the petitioner that he is a
'native of Jajpur district'. As already stated, said certificate
appears to have been issued in favour of the Petitioner on
16.07.2013, which is long before the publication of the
advertisement. The certificate was issued as per Rule (3) of
the then prevailing Rules, i.e., Orissa Miscellaneous
Certificate Rules, 1984 (for short, the Rules, 1984). Further
the certificate was issued in the statutory Form (III). The
Form (III) appended to the rules requires the Revenue Officer
to certify the nativity as well as residence of the applicant.
As such, the nativity of the Petitioner has been mentioned
as Jajpur district, while his residence has been mentioned
as Jagannathpur in Koraput district.
10. There is a difference between 'nativity' and
'residence' of a person. The word 'native' has not been
defined in the Rules. As per Black's Law Dictionary (7th
Edition) 'native' means:
"1. A person who is a citizen of a particular place,
region, or nation by virtue of having been there. 2. A
person whose national origin derives from having
been born within a particular place. 3. Loosely, a
person born abroad whose parents are citizens of the
nation and are not permanently residing abroad. 4.
Loosely, a person or thing belonging to a group
indigenous to a particular place. The term Native
American is sometimes short-ened to native."
11. The Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary (New
9th Edition) defines 'native' as follows:-
"1. [only before noun] connected with the place
where you were born and lived for the first years of
your life: your native land/country/city. It is a long
time since he has visited his native Chile. Her native
language is Ko-rean. SEE ALSO NATIVE SPEAKER. 2
[ONLY BEFORE NOUN] connected with the place
where you have always lived or have lived for a long
time: native Berliners. 3. [only before noun]
(sometimes offensive) connected with the people who
originally lived in a country before other people,
especially white people, came there: native peoples
native art. 4 (to...) (of animals and plants) existing
naturally in a place indigenous: the native plants of
America. The tiger is native to India. native species 5.
[only before noun] that you have naturally without
having to learned it innate: native cunning"
A reading of these definitions would imply that
'nativity' refers to the place to which a person originally
belongs.
12. The word 'resident' has also not been defined in
the rules. The Oxford Dictionary defines 'resident' as
follows:-
"1. a person who lives in a particular place or who
has their home there: a resident of the United States.
There were confrontations between local residents
and the police. 2. (formal) a person who is staying in
a hotel. The hotel restaurant is open to non-residents.
3. a doctor working in a hospital in the US who is
receiving special advanced training."
13. Thus, while 'nativity' of a person refers to the
place to which he originally belongs, 'residence' is the place
where he resides for the time being. As already stated, the
resident certificate mentions that he is a resident of
Jagannathpur since 1984. A person may be a native of any
place but may be residing at a different place. It does not
and cannot imply that he has to be treated as a permanent
resident of the place of his nativity for all times to come. So
even if the Petitioner was a native of Jajpur district, he is a
resident of Koraput district since 1984, which is nearly 19
years prior to publication of the advertisement. In the case
of Pratima Mohapatra (supra), the coordinate Bench
relying on the judgments of this Court passed in the case of
Sarojini Sahu v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in
2014 (II) OLR 65 and Anuradha Das v. Sub-Collector, Puri
in Writ Appeal No.374 of 2013 held that a person ordinarily
residing in a place for more than six months can be treated
as a permanent resident of that place. This Court is in
respectful agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate
Bench as above and also holds that the Petitioner having
been a resident of Koraput district since his birth, has to be
treated as a permanent resident of the said district
regardless of the fact that he is a native of Jajpur district. It
must be kept in mind that the requirement as per the
advertisement is permanent residence of the candidate and
not his nativity.
14. From the foregoing discussion, it becomes evident
that rejection of candidature by treating him a 'resident' of
another district (Jajpur) is entirely erroneous and contrary
to the settled position of law. It reflects the fallacy of the
concerned authorities to treat 'nativity' and 'permanent
residence' as synonymous, which as discussed before, are
not. Said action of the authorities cannot therefore, be
sustained. This Court is, for such reason inclined to
interfere in the matter.
15. For the foregoing reason therefore, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order of engagement
dated 19.05.2015, in so far as the same relates to the
Opposite Party No.2 is hereby quashed, The Opposite
Parties-authorities are directed to issue order of
appointment in favour of the Petitioner as Jogana Sahayak
of Tankua Gram Panchayat within four weeks from today.
Since the Opposite Party No.2 has been discharging his
duties for nearly a decade, the authorities may engage him
in any available vacancy in the district. The Petitioner's
appointment shall notionally relate back to the date on
which the Opposite Party No.2 was appointed, though he
shall not be entitled to any financial benefits.
Digitally Signed (Sashikanta Mishra)
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Judge
Date: Orissa
22-Dec-2025 11:24:20
High Court, Cuttack,
The 19th December, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno
