State Of Odisha And Ors vs Mamata Nayak on 12 March, 2026

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    W.A. No.2428 of 2024

     State of Odisha and Ors.        ...                    Appellants

                                            Mr. S. B. Mohanty, A.G.A.
                                 -versus-

     Mamata Nayak                    ...                   Respondent

Mr. S. Routray, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Date of Hearing: 26.02.2026 Date of Judgment: 12.03.2026

J, Chittaranjan Dash

1. This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10791 of 2022, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the present Respondent was disposed of with a direction to the State-Appellants to consider her case for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak or any equivalent post against the existing vacancy, taking into account the preference indicated by her in the application and to issue appointment order in her favour in the district wherein she is found eligible.

2. The fact matrix of the case, in brief, is that the State Government made a resolution dated 26.12.2016 laying down the guidelines for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks and pursuant thereto recruitment was undertaken for filling up 14,087 posts across various districts in the State. The Respondent, possessing +3 Arts with B.Ed. qualification, applied online under the SEBC category and while submitting her application exercised options for 22 districts in order of preference, mentioning Bolangir as her first preference and Malkangiri as the last. She was thereafter called for verification of original certificates on 01.02.2018 and after such verification a list of eligible candidates was published wherein her name appeared at Sl. No.472. However, in the selection process she could not come within the zone of consideration as she had secured 169.733 marks, which was below the prescribed cut-off marks for the SEBC (Women) category. The records indicate that the cut-off marks in the first round stood at 196.333 and in the subsequent round at 204.411 for the relevant category and districts.

Consequently, despite the consideration of district preferences during the rounds of selection, the Respondent was not selected. Thereafter, the Respondent approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9290 of 2021 seeking consideration of her representation, which was disposed of directing the State authorities to examine her claim. Pursuant thereto, the State Government, by order dated 07.03.2022, rejected the claim of the Respondent. Assailing the said rejection order, the Respondent again approached this Court by filing

W.P.(C) No.10791 of 2022, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 26.04.2024 with the direction as noted hereinbefore. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State-Appellants have preferred the present intra- court appeal.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants-State contended that the learned Single Judge erred in directing consideration of the Respondent for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak against the existing vacancies. It was submitted that the Respondent had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the guidelines and advertisement dated 26.12.2016 and was duly considered along with other candidates. However, she secured only 169.733 marks, which was below the cut-off marks prescribed for the SEBC (W) category, the same being 196.333 in the first round and 204.411 in the subsequent round of selection. It was further contended that the Respondent had exercised district preferences and the authorities had undertaken the selection process by considering such preferences in order of merit; nevertheless, as she did not secure marks sufficient to fall within the zone of selection, she could not be appointed. Learned AGA further submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to the 2016 advertisement had already been concluded long ago and the unfilled vacancies, if any, had been carried forward to subsequent recruitment processes. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the Respondent for appointment against

existing vacancies is contrary to the governing recruitment framework and settled principles of service jurisprudence. It was also argued that reliance placed by the Respondent on the decision in in the matter of Babita Satpathy vs. State of Odisha in W.A. No.701 of 2019 is misconceived, inasmuch as the said decision was rendered in the peculiar facts of that case and cannot be treated as a precendent applicable to all similarly placed candidates. On the aforesaid grounds, learned AGA submitted that the impugned judgment warrants interference in the present intra-court appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the Appellants to consider the case of the Respondent for engagement against the available vacancies. It was submitted that the Respondent had duly participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued under the Government guidelines dated 26.12.2016 and had successfully undergone certificate verification, whereafter her name was reflected in the list of eligible candidates at Sl. No.472. Learned counsel further contended that though a large number of posts were advertised, a substantial number of vacancies remained unfilled and the authorities had not properly taken into account the district preferences exercised by the candidates. According to him, had all the preferences been duly considered, the Respondent would have come within the zone of selection against the available vacancies. It was further argued that similarly situated candidates had been

granted relief by this Court in the matter of Babita Satpathy (supra), and therefore the Respondent is also entitled to similar consideration. Learned counsel submitted that the rejection order dated 07.03.2022 was arbitrary and failed to properly appreciate the factual position regarding the unfilled vacancies and the Respondent's claim. In such circumstances, it was contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised jurisdiction in directing consideration of the Respondent's case and the impugned judgment does not warrant interference in the present appeal.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful examination of the materials on record, we find that the controversy essentially centres around the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 26.12.2016 for engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks, wherein 14,087 posts were advertised across different districts of the State. It is not in dispute that the Respondent had participated in the selection process, had undergone certificate verification and had been placed in the list of eligible candidates. The grievance of the Respondent was that despite a substantial number of vacancies remaining unfilled, her candidature was not considered in accordance with the scheme of the recruitment guidelines, particularly with regard to the consideration of district preferences and preparation of the merit list.

6. The reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, in our considered view, stands supported by the long line of authorities rendered by this Court in relation to the very same recruitment

framework. In Babita Satpathy (supra), this Court, while dealing with a challenge arising out of the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 26.12.2016, held that where a substantial number of vacancies remained unfilled despite the availability of eligible candidates who had participated in the selection process, the authorities were required to consider such candidates strictly in accordance with the recruitment guidelines and could not prematurely close the selection process. The principle underlying the said decision was that the object of the recruitment exercise was to ensure filling up of the advertised vacancies through a process that duly accounted for merit and the preferences exercised by the candidates, and that administrative action defeating such object could not be sustained. The same principle was reiterated in Dhaneswar Das vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.32208 of 2023, where this Court again emphasised that when eligible candidates had participated in the selection process and vacancies continued to remain available, the authorities were obliged to extend due consideration to such candidates in accordance with the governing guidelines, instead of declining their claims on technical or procedural grounds. The position has been further reaffirmed in Rashmi Ranjan Mohanty vs. State of Odisha in W.P.(C) No.1215 of 2026, wherein this Court, dealing with claims arising from the same recruitment scheme, reiterated that the recruitment process must be carried to its logical conclusion in the manner contemplated under the governing guidelines and that

eligible candidates cannot be arbitrarily excluded from consideration when vacancies remain unfilled.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is essential to visit the observations made in the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC 1610. The relevant paragraph is produced as below:

8. It is needless to emphasise that the purpose and object behind holding a recruitment examination is to select suitable and best candidates out of the lot and such an object can only be achieved by making a common select list of the successful candidates belonging to all the zones. On the other hand if zone-wise selection is made then various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and secured more marks than those who are selected from other zones would be deprived of their selection resulting into great injustice and consequent discrimination. Thus there can be said to exist no nexus between the aforesaid process of zone-wise selection and the object to be achieved, that is, the selection of the best candidates. That being so the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the advertisement in question and reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment would lead to discriminatory results because by adopting the said process of zone-wise selection would result in the devaluation of merit at the selection examination by selecting a candidate having lesser marks over the meritorious candidate who has secured more marks and consequently the rule of equal chance for equal marks would be violated. Such a process would not only be against the principles enunciated in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution but it would also result in heart burning and frustration amongst the young men of the country. The rule of equality of opportunity for every individual in the country is an inalienable part of our constitutional guarantee and that being so a candidate who

secures more marks than another is definitely entitled to get preference for the job as the merit must be the test when selecting a candidate for recruitment for the posts which are advertised. In the present case admittedly the process of selection as envisaged in paragraph 16 of the advertisement in question is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it has been demonstrated from the marks st of the Appellants placed before us at the Bar during the course of arguments that they had secured more marks than those secured by some of the selected candidates.

9. In the case of Rajendran Vs. State of Madras & Ors. (1968(2) SCR 786) this Court had struck down the district wise distribution of seats for the medical admission as providing for unit wise allocation was held to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that it might result in candidates of inferior calibre being selected in one district and those of superior calibre not being selected in another district. Similarly in the case of Peeriakaruppan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1971 (2) SCR 430) unit-wise allocation of seats was also held to be void and was struck down as discriminatory. Again in the case of Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1986 (2) SCC 534) region-wise scheme adopted by the State Government was held to be void and struck down by this Court by holding that it would result in denial of equal opportunity and was thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The ratio of these decisions of this Court is fully attracted to the facts of the present case in which the process of selection on the zonal basis will also result in denial of equal opportunity and would be violative of Article 14 and we hold accordingly."

8. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision assumes relevance to the issue in the present case. Here, the Respondent had participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued under the Resolution dated 26.12.2016, had undergone

certificate verification and was included in the list of eligible candidates, having secured 169.733 marks. Her claim, however, came to be rejected by the authorities on the premise that she did not fall within the cut-off marks for the districts corresponding to the preferences exercised by her. The Respondent has been pursuing her claim for consideration through successive rounds of litigation, contending that the rejection of her candidature was not in consonance with the recruitment guidelines governing the process. In particular, reliance has been placed on Clauses 5.7, 5.10 and 5.11 of the guidelines, which, when read conjointly, indicate that the authorities were required to prepare and finalise a 100% merit list by considering the entire range of district preferences exercised by the candidates through successive rounds until the vacancies were filled or the pool of eligible candidates stood exhausted. It is also not disputed that out of 14,087 advertised posts, as many as 4,136 vacancies remained unfilled, despite the availability of eligible candidates who had participated in the recruitment process.

9. The submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants that the Respondent could not be accommodated on account of the district preferences exercised by her also does not persuade us to take a view different from that of the learned Single Judge. The option of preference indicated by a candidate during the application process is essentially intended to reflect the order of inclination of the candidate for allotment of district or post and cannot be construed as conferring an absolute or exclusive right to be considered only in

respect of the preferred district to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Preference, by its very nature, is only a factor to be taken into account while allocating vacancies in accordance with merit and availability and does not operate as a rigid condition capable of disqualifying a candidate from consideration altogether. If the scheme of recruitment and the governing guidelines are read in their proper perspective, it becomes evident that the purpose of calling for preferences is to facilitate an orderly allocation of vacancies while ensuring that the selection process ultimately results in filling up the advertised posts. To interpret the preference exercised by a candidate as a determinative bar would result in a situation where candidates possessing identical qualifications and having participated in the same recruitment process are appointed, while others are denied consideration merely on account of district- specific vacancy allocation, notwithstanding the existence of vacancies elsewhere in the recruitment pool. Such an outcome would run contrary to the principles of service jurisprudence and the constitutional mandate embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. Consequently, the exercise of preference cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats the larger object of the recruitment process or results in the exclusion of otherwise eligible candidates when vacancies continue to remain unfilled.

10. In that circumstances, accepting the argument of the Appellants that the Respondent's candidature stood conclusively foreclosed merely on account of the particular district preferences exercised by her would effectively mean that an otherwise eligible candidate, who has already participated in the selection process and secured qualifying marks, can be denied consideration even when a substantial number of vacancies continue to remain unfilled. Such an approach would, in effect, create compartmentalised segments within the recruitment process where vacancies in certain districts remain unutilised while eligible candidates are excluded elsewhere. This is precisely the situation which the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautions against, emphasising that recruitment mechanisms must operate in a manner that preserves the primacy of merit and avoids artificial barriers that defeat equal opportunity. In the present case, therefore, treating the Respondent's district preferences as an inflexible limitation, despite the existence of large unfilled vacancies and the scheme of the guidelines requiring consideration of all preferences until completion of the merit list, would undermine the very objective of the recruitment exercise and lead to the inequitable consequences which the Supreme Court sought to prevent.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of law, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10791 of 2022. The direction issued therein merely requires consideration of the Respondent's case in

accordance with the governing guidelines and does not confer any automatic right of appointment.

12. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge

A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani

Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 14-Mar-2026 14:48:21