Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Suchitra Suchismita Ojha on 10 March, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2740 of 2024
And
I.A. No.7192 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
-Versus-
Suchitra Suchismita Ojha .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellants : Mr. D. Mohanty, AGA
For Respondent : Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 10th March, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of applicant-appellants (State) and submits,
impugned is order dated 9th July, 2024 of the learned single Judge,
exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to direct admission of petitioner
(appearing through her father), in class-VI of the school, for academic
session 2024-25 as she had been provisionally selected. The direction
cannot be complied with, which is why appeal has been preferred.
There was reported delay of 54 days in presenting the appeal. The delay
be condoned on application made.
2. Mr. Rath, learned advocate files his power executed by
respondent, petitioner before the learned single Judge.
3. Perused the application for condonation of delay. We accept
cause shown. The delay is condoned and the appeal admitted. The
application is disposed of.
4. Having heard Mr. Mohanty we perused paragraphs-12 and 13 in
impugned judgment. They are reproduced below.
"12. In fact, in the case at hand, lapses are on the part of
opposite party Nos.3 and 7 and such other persons
involved in the selection process, which led to the
issuance of Annexure-3, whereafter, the Select List was
prepared and published vide Annexure-4 followed by
Admission Notice (Annexure-5), in response whereof, the
petitioner's father obtained the T.C. It is claimed that a
Notice vide Annexure-D/6 was issued for correction of
data in the result sheet, hence, it was for the petitioner's
father to respond, which was however not done, hence, on
scrutiny, the age of the petitioner was noticed,
whereafter, admission to her was denied and it is rightly
so. But the Court finds the said notice not to be
specifically issued to the petitioner's guardian father. It is
a general notice to all the selected candidates. Had it
been so, such correction would not have escaped the
attention of the petitioner's father. With such a notice, all
the candidates were informed to correct the data as found
in Annexure-4. It could be possible for anyone to escape
such notice issued by opposite party No.7, who should
have made an attempt to inform the guardians of all the
selected candidates separately to carry out the correction
of data wherever necessary or the school or such other
authorities was to carry out such exercised themselves,
which was in any case their duty and responsibility to do.
Of course, such a Notice like Annexure-D/6 cannot be
held as unusual in an admission process and hence, it
may not also be just to allege any serious breach in the
conduct of opposite party No.7 and other authorities
whosoever involved therein but the situation of the
present kind could have been easily avoided with
individual intimation to the guardians of the selected
candidates or undertaking the exercise by the school or
such authorities sincerely and meticulously. As it is made
to understand, innocently and under a genuine
impression that the selection has taken place in due
course, with Notice under Annexure-5 issued, the
petitioner's TC was collected from her school. As a
consequence, whereof, it may also lead to a situation,
where the petitioner could be left in lurch with
uncertainty as to where to go after having lost a bright
chance to get admission into a school of her choice.
13. The Court is alive to the fact that admission of the
petitioner in the school of opposite party No.7 cannot be
claimed as a matter of right as the selection is always
provisional but under the present peculiar circumstances,
it deserves a treatment befitting the peculiar situation
keeping in view the future of the petitioner especially
later to her T.C. to have been collected. The decision in
Sanatan Gouda (supra) is a case, where the plight of the
petitioner therein was on better footing, but this Court,
having given an anxious consideration to the case at
hand and taking cognizance of the fact that definite
lapses have taken place from the side of opposite party
No.7 and others while being part of the exercise, reaches
at a conclusion that the petitioner should not be made to
suffer, rather, allowed admission in to Class-VI in the
school as a special case, if the admission is not over by
now. In other words, it is held that in the fitness of things,
the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court is required to
be exercised to do justice to the case."
5. We are in complete agreement with the learned single Judge. We
must add that the provisional selection of respondent was made on
laches of omission to notice her date of birth. Appellants cannot take
recourse to the general notice, on itself having made omission to verify.
Based on position taken by appellants, father of respondent went and
obtained transfer certificate (TC) from the school, in which respondent
was reading. The learned single Judge has noted predicament
respondent has been put in by omission on part of State as aforesaid and
her father, to not take note of the general notice regarding age criteria
for admission to class-VI.
6. The learned single Judge appreciated the facts to think fit to
exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, to overcome the administrative
policy of not admitting students to a particular class as outside the
contemplated age. Mr. Mohanty's submission today is, the academic
year has also ended. We, in continuation of exercising said
extraordinary power direct admission be given forthwith to respondent
in class-VI for ensuing academic year. So that there is no further delay
caused by the litigation, we have dealt with the appeal itself on it
having been moved before us today.
7. Mr. Mohanty expresses apprehension that this may be relied
upon as precedent. It cannot be so done because of peculiar facts and
circumstances in the case inviting exercise of extraordinary writ
jurisdiction. Secondly, the policy is not under challenge. Consequently,
we have said nothing about the age criteria, in directing admission to
class-VI or for that matter any other class in Government schools.
8. The appeal is thus allowed and disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Arun Mishra/
A. Nanda/Jr. Steno
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Mar-2025 17:55:25
