Sushanta Churra vs Opsc And Others ..... Opposite Parties on 9 November, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Sushanta Churra vs Opsc And Others ..... Opposite Parties on 9 November, 2021

Bench: B.R. Sarangi

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      WP(C) No. 1359 of 2017

Sushanta Churra.                 .....                          Petitioner
                                               Mr. S. K. Ojha, Advocate
                                 Vs.
OPSC and others                  .....                    Opposite Parties
                                               Mr. S.B. Jena, Advocate
            CORAM:
               DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                     ORDER

09.11.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. A memo has been filed by Mr. S. Mallick, learned counsel for deletion of his name as counsel for the petitioner. In view of such memo, the name of Mr. S. Mallick, learned counsel be deleted from the cause list.

3. Heard Mr. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the OPSC.

4. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner belongs to SC category. Pursuant to the advertisement issued vide Annexure-1, total 29 SC (M) and 14 SC (F) number of posts, i.e. in total 43 posts were made available for SC candidates for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil and Mechanical). According to him, though the petitioner has secured 196 marks as per the mark list vide Annexure-4 in the written examination, but he has not been called upon to the viva voce test, whereas the person securing the same mark belonging to UR category was called upon to participate in the process of selection. This information the petitioner obtained under RTI Act, which is annexed under Annexure- 6 to the rejoinder affidavit. It is also contended that the petitioner having not called to the interview though he has secured the same mark vis-à-vis the candidate belonging to UR category, he has been deprived of getting his employment, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2021) 4 SCC 542 which is also reported in (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 752.

5. Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the OPSC does not dispute such position that person belonging to UR category securing 196 marks has been called upon to the interview, but the petitioner having securing 196 marks has not been called upon to the interview. According to him, the reason of such fact has been given in the reply to the rejoinder affidavit filed by him on 14.11.2018, which is not available on record.

6. Let a copy of the said affidavit be placed on record, so that the matter can be disposed of in accordance with law.

7. Call this matter two weeks after.

Arun                                    (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                             JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court