Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 11 March, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 7190 of 2016
(An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
Purna Chandra Sahoo ...... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Ms. S. Gumansingh
Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.Behera
Additional Government Advocate
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
11th March, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
An advertisement was published by the State Project
Director, Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority
(OPEPA) on 11.09.2014 for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks
in different districts including Bolangir. Subsequently, as per
direction of this Court in another writ application filed by
some overaged candidates, a corrigendum was issued to the
advertisement on 09.02.2016 raising the maximum age from
35 to 42 years. The petitioner, being an overaged candidate
became eligible to apply as per the corrigendum. Further,
having BA/B.Ed. and OTET II qualification he submitted his
application pursuant to the corrigendum. He was called upon
for verification of original testimonials and other certificates.
A list of eligible candidates was published by OPEPA wherein
the petitioner's name found place at SL. No. 123. By notice
dated 19.03.2016, a provisional list of candidates who had
applied pursuant to the advertisement as 4th preference from
Bolangir district were intimated to remain personally present
for verification of the original documents on 29.06.2016 but
the petitioner was not so called upon. He, therefore, filed this
writ application seeking the following relief:
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:-
(i) Admit the writ petition;
(ii) Call for the records,
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
directing the opposite parties, particularly, opposite party
No.5 to issue necessary engagement orders in favour of the
petitioner taking into consideration their position in the
provisional merit list prepared by opposite party No.3
OPEPA under Annexure-3 and further the opposite parties be
directed to extend all financial and service benefits in favour
of the petitioners as has ben extended to the persons who
have already been selected; and
(iv) Pass such other order/order, direction/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound
shall ever pray.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Project
Coordinator (DPC), SSA, Bolangir. It is stated that the
advertisement dated 11.09.2014 was published notifying 716
nos. of vacancies of Bolangir district. All candidates were
allowed to give option for 5 districts according to priority. Out
of 716 posts, 215 posts were meant for Trained Graduate
Teacher (TGT) (Science) and 143 posts for TGT (Arts). The
vacancies in each category were prepared considering the
backlog vacancies of SC, ST & PH category. As such, in the
list, prepared the vacancies under TGT (Arts) came to 89 after
deducting 54 backlog vacancies out of 143. The petitioner
had applied for Bolangir district as his 1st preference. The
provisional merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner's
name found place at SL No. 94. But he could not be selected
as his total marks was 168.87 per cent as against the last
selected candidate under SEBC category who had secured
182.99 per cent marks. As such, the petitioner could not be
selected. As per the guidelines laid down by the Government
after completion of the procedure of engagement of
candidates for 1st preference, OPEPA supplied the list of
candidates opting for Bolangir as their 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th
preference. As such, the comparison of marks regarding
selection of candidates of first priority district with
candidates selected with other priorities does not arise.
Further, the petitioner is not an overaged candidate as his
date of birth 04.05.1979.
3. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder seeking to refute the
stand taken in the counter. It is stated that three candidates
namely, Seshadev Padhee, Suratha Naik and Belarsen Sahu
have been selected and engaged despite securing less than
182.99% marks and having opted Bolangir as their 2nd
preference district. Belarsen Sahu, whose name appeared at
Sl. No. 5 in the original draft list prepared on 10.10.2014 and
who cited Bolangir as his 1st preference district, was
subsequently selected. The case of the petitioner was not
considered on the plea that selection for 1st preference had
been completed but the Opposite Parties selected candidates
securing less percentage of mark citing 2nd preference as
Bolangir. It is further reiterated that the petitioner belongs to
the age group of 35 -42 years and had applied pursuant to
the corrigendum dated 09.02.2016.
4.Heard Ms. S. Gumansingh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.Behera, learned AGA for the State.
5. Ms. Gumansingh would submit that as per information
obtained by the petitioner from the office of DPC, it is evident
that candidates securing less percentage of marks and who
opted Bolangir as their 2nd preference district have been
engaged as Sikshya Sahayaks. She further submits that after
completion of the process of engagement of candidates of
the1st preference district, the process of engaging the 2nd
preference candidates was started from out of the list
supplied by the OPEPA to fill up those vacancies which were
not filled up or had arisen due to non-joining/resignation of
candidates selected. But in the letter dated 31.07.2015 of
OPEPA, it is stated that a separate list of overaged candidates
as per the 3rd preference choice were available. Ms.
Gumansingh further submits that 7 candidates selected
under B.Ed. (Arts) category had resigned against which the
candidatures of 6 persons including Seshadev Padhee,
Suratha Naik and Belarsen Sahu was considered despite the
fact that they had not opted Bolangir as their 1st preference
district. These persons have secured less marks than the
petitioner for which, their engagement ignoring the case of
the petitioner is completely illegal. According to Ms.
Gumansingh, the petitioner should have been selected
against the vacancies before going for selection of 2nd
preference candidates.
6. Per contra, Mr. Behera, learned State counsel would
submit that the persons named by the petitioner and 3
others who were selected had obtained positive orders in
their favour from this Court, for which they were
accommodated against the vacancies of TGT (Arts) category
caused due to resignation of 7 candidates already engaged.
Mr. Behera further submits that the petitioner having
secured less marks than the last candidate of his category
during the selection of 1st preference candidates could not
have been selected. He cannot claim parity with persons
engaged against the vacancies arising out of resignation of 7
candidates for the above reason.
7. There is no dispute with regard to facts inasmuch as the
petitioner was one of the candidates pursuant to the
advertisement dated 11.09.2014 read with the corrigendum
dated 09.02.2016. The petitioner cited Bolangir as his 1st
preference district. In the provisional merit list, he was
placed at Sl. No.94. It is seen that he secured 168.87%
marks. The provisional selection list, which was subsequently
published, contains the list of 65 persons. The petitioner
belongs to the SEBC category. The last person of SEBC
category is said to have secured 182.99 marks, which is more
than the marks secured by the petitioner. There is also no
dispute that 7 persons from the said list resigned though
their particulars have not been given. In the rejoinder filed by
the petitioner, it is stated that 3 persons namely, Seshadev
Padhee, Suratha Naik and Belarsen Sahu had cited Bolangir
as their 1st preference district but despite securing less
marks were selected and engaged. From the draft list of
applicants annexed to the rejoinder, it is seen that Belarsen
Sahu was placed at Sl. No. 44 and secured 149.50% marks,
Seshadev Padhee being placed at Sl. No. 359 secured
157.2629% marks and Surath Nayak being placed at Sl. No.
392 secured 154.6743% marks. As against the above, the
petitioner Purna Chandra Sahoo was placed at Sl. No. 279
and secured 168.866% marks. The applications of the above
named three applicants have also been enclosed to the
rejoinder being obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act.
Perusal of these documents would indicate that all three
candidates had cited Bolangir as their first preference
district. Such being the case, it is not understood as to how
they could be engaged after completion of the 1st preference
choice candidates. Even so, how could they be engaged
ahead of the petitioner who secured more marks than them
and also cited Bolangir as his 1st preference. It has been
argued on behalf of the State that those 3 persons were
engaged in compliance of the order passed by this Court in
their favour. The details of the cases filed by the said
candidates and the orders passed therein have not been
stated. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the State that
while directing the authorities to engage the said persons
against the vacancies arising due to resignation of 7 1st
preference candidates, the case of the petitioner was to be
ignored.
8. From the foregoing narration, it appears that the petitioner
having secured less marks than the last selected candidate of
his category of candidates citing Bolangir as their 1st
preference district could not be selected. The authorities
cannot be faulted on this score. However, 7 candidates
selected in the first phase resigned resulting in 7 vacancies.
It has been argued that by such time, the first phase
selection was over. If such is the case, then how could the 3
persons named by the petitioner in his rejoinder, securing
less marks than him and citing Bolangir as their 1st
preference district, could be selected ?. If 7 vacancies arose,
then the selection ought to have been made from out of the
provisional list of candidates strictly in terms of merit.
9. It is seen that by letter dated 30.7.2015 issued by the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary (S & ME Department) the State
Project Director, OPEPA was directed to fill up vacancies
arising out of resignation of the candidates engaged after 1st
and 2nd preference, by the candidates of the 3rd preference.
It is also stated that the case of all overaged eligible
candidates shall be sent to the district for due consideration.
By letter dated 31.07.2015, OPEPA intimated all District
Project Coordinators of the State to prepare merit list of
candidates for 3rd preference choice district. It was
specifically mentioned that the candidature of the overaged
candidates will be considered in their 3rd preference choice
district who have applied online subject to submission of
positive orders of this Court.
10. If this was the instruction of the department as well as
OPEPA, the question is, how could the three persons named
above be engaged in their 1st preference district, that is,
Bolangir. Having done so, it is obviously not open to the
authorities to deny similar benefit to the petitioner as not
only did he cite Bolangir as his 1st preference district but
also secured more marks than the above named three
persons.
11. From the conspectus of the facts of the case, contentions
raised and the materials on record, this Court is of the view
that the Opposite Party authorities committed illegality in
ignoring the candidature of the petitioner for selection
against the vacancies arising out of resignation of 7
candidates, who being engaged in the 1st preference selection
had subsequently resigned. The petitioner has therefore,
made out a good case for interference by this Court.
12. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The
Opposite Party authorities are directed to issue order of
engagement in favour of the petitioner as Sikhya Sahayak or
in any redesignated equivalent post within three months from
today. Such engagement shall be made notionally effective
from the date the immediate junior to the petitioner as per
the merit list was so engaged. However, the petitioner shall
not be entitled to any financial benefits but his services from
the aforementioned date shall be counted for the purpose of
seniority and other service benefits.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Deepak
