Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Priyanka Mohanty on 7 February, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No. 1221 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
-Versus-
Priyanka Mohanty .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case :
For Appellants : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA
For Respondent : Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 7th February, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of appellants (State). He submits, the
facts are not in dispute except that respondent had applied for one of
two posts, which did not require training. Her application was duly
rejected. Hence, appeal has been preferred to demonstrate so against
otherwise finding by the learned single Judge.
2. On query from Court Mr. Dash submits, respondent did get
highest marks in category Socially and Economically Backward
Classes (SEBC) women and it is also true that she underwent training.
3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of
respondent and submits, the learned single Judge appreciated the facts
to direct his client's appointment as against post of contractual
classical teacher. On query made he submits, it is a post that required
trained candidates to apply. His client having had undergone the
training had applied for the post. On further query Mr. Pattnaik refers
to provisional tabulation sheet of applicants for the post of contractual
teachers in response to advertisements dated 28th October to 21st
November, 2014 and 13th January to 28th January, 2015. He submits,
advertisement in the prior period were for trained candidates and the
later advertisement, for candidates who were untrained. His client
having had the training, applied against the first advertisement and on
the second advertisement made, also thereunder. She secured highest
marks in her category on both applications.
4. It appears the appointing authority had considered
respondent's first application. However, respondent had also applied
application for the other posts requiring trained candidates.
5. It appears, the learned single Judge appreciated fact of
respondent having applied against the first advertisement and she
secured highest marks, well above the cut-off mark relevant to her
category. State (appellant) considered her second application. The
situation is whether a candidate having more qualification than
required can apply for the post advertised. There does not appear to
be a bar. In any event she scored highest in her category on both her
applications. As such, she is entitled to seek appointment in the post
she preferred, being on her candidature against the first application.
6. In view of aforesaid, we do not find reason to interfere with
impugned judgment.
7. The appeal is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Acting Chief Justice
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Sks HIGH COURT
Date: 10-Feb-2025 11:36:33
