Orissa High Court
WP(C)/33151/2011 on 3 May, 2018
Author: Biswanath Rath
Bench: Biswanath Rath
W.P.(C). No.33151 of 2011
18. 03.05.2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri D. Mohapatra, learned Standing counsel
appearing for the School & Mass Education
Department.
2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the non-
empanelment of the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak in
Baliguda Education district.
3. Short background involved in this case is that
pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-7, the
petitioner made an application seeking an engagement
in the post of Sikshya Sahayak under Kandhamal,
Phulbani Sharva Sikshya Abhiyan. The petitioner
referring to the documents accompanied herein
establishes that the application form pursuant to the
advertisement was posted to Kandhamal counterpart,
but however the postal packet was delivered with the
Boudh counterpart who was also undertaking such
exercise but for appointment in the Boudh Education
district. It is for the wrong delivery of the application
form of the petitioner with Boudh counterpart, it
appears, the case of the petitioner could not be
considered involving Baliguda Education District nor
his name could appear in the provisional list prepared
in the Boudh education district. It is in the premises of
wrong delivery of application form and non-
consideration of the case of the petitioner by the
Baliguda education district, the petitioner being
aggrieved, filed a representation as appearing at
2
Contd......... Annexure-6 appearing to be addressed to Boudh
03.05.2018
counterpart again.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for
clear sending of the application by the petitioner to
Kandhamal counterpart appearing at page-18 of the
brief, claimed that the petitioner is not responsible for
such wrong delivery and since the petitioner had a
clear application and also meeting with all the
requirements, this Court in allowing the writ petition
should issue a direction to the Kandhamal counterpart
giving engagement to the petitioner in the post of
Sikshya Sahayak under Baliguda Education district.
5. Shri Mohapatra, learned Standing counsel
appearing for the School & Mass Education
Department referring to the objection made in the
counter affidavit filed by opposite party nos.3 and 4
and further taking this Court to the advertisement vide
Annexure-A/3, submitted that for the delivery of the
application form with the Boudh counterpart and as
the Boudh counterpart was also undertaking a similar
exercise for appointment of Sikshya Sahayak in Boudh
education district and further the petitioner being not
applicant for the Boudh education district, there is no
wrong committed by the Boudh Education District
Authority, as such, Shri Mohapatra, learned standing
counsel submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief. Further, on the premises that there was
publication of provisional merit list asking for objection
from the candidates also for Baliguda Education
3
Contd......... district, Shri Mohapatra, learned standing counsel
03.05.2018
contended that petitioner had a chance to object to the
publication of the provisional list, but petitioner
remained silent.
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court finds, the petitioner made his application for
engagement in the post of Sikshya Sahayak pursuant
to an advertisement under Annexure-7. There is also
no dispute that the registered receipt issued by the
Postal Department establishing that the document was
destined to Kandhamal counterpart, but however, the
document has been delivered on the Boudh
counterpart which was also undertaking the similar
exercise at the relevant point of time and further
looking to the representation submitted by the
petitioner vide Annexure-6 series, this Court finds,
since the petitioner was an applicant under the
Baliguda education district, the petitioner instead of
making an application /representation to the Baliguda
Education district made the representation to Boudh
counterpart who had absolutely no role on the
application of the petitioner. This Court though
observes that the petitioner is not responsible for the
non-selection of him by Kandhamal education district
or the Baliguda education district and has suffered for
wrong delivery of his application by the Postal
Department, but it cannot be also held that Boudh
Education district is responsible for non-selection of
the petitioner. Even though this Court finds, the
4
Contd......... petitioner has suffered for no mistake of him, but for
03.05.2018
no immediate action on the part of the petitioner,
petitioner even remaining silent even after publication
of the provisional select list involving Kandhamal
Education district including Boudh education district,
this Court finds, the petitioner himself has also
neglected his case and thus not entitled to the relief he
has claimed herein.
7. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has also
suffered on account of wrong delivery of the application
form by the Postal Department, dismissal of this writ
petition shall not stand as a bar on the way of the
petitioner to take up appropriate proceeding involving
the Postal Department subject to however law of
limitation.
8. The writ petition thus dismissed, but however
with the liberty indicated hereinabove.
................................
Biswanath Rath, J.
MRS 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61