Orissa High Court
Smt. Sasmita Sahoo vs State Of Orissa And Others ... Opposite ... on 3 February, 2012
Author: S.K.Mishra
Bench: S.K.Mishra
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 7325 of 2011
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
---------------
Smt. Sasmita Sahoo ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others ... Opposite parties
For petitioner - M/s. M.S.Panda and M.Panda
For opposite parties - Addl. Standing Counsel
---------------
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.MISHRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing - 08.12.2011 : Date of judgment - 03.02.2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K.Mishra, J.The petitioner in this case prays to set aside the merit list of Sikhya Sahayaks for Angul district and issue necessary direction to the opposite parties to include her name in the list of the selected candidates under the S.E.B.C. category and give her appointment as Sikhya Sahayak.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for Sikhya Sahayak in the Angul education district in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 22.01.2011 bearing no.159. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the advertisement, she applied for the post of Sikhya Sahayak and also submitted her education certificates, mark-sheets, caste and residential certificate along with employment exchange registration card. In said view of the matter, the petitioner claims that she should have been considered for selection under the categories of S.E.B.C., 2 general and women. After receipt of all applications in the education district unit of Angul, opposite party no.2 prepared a merit list of candidates separately under the categories of General, S.E.B.C. and S.C. & S.T. The petitioner found her name placed in the seventh position in general category but not in the list of S.E.B.C. category. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 affixed a draft merit list in the notice board containing names of 62 candidates but nowhere the name of the petitioner was found either under the general or S.E.B.C. category. The petitioner pleads that candidates securing less marks than her were included in the said list. It is further contended that the opposite parties without exhausting C.T. trained candidates, have selected untrained candidates illegally, whimsically and arbitrarily in violation of Government Resolution. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the opposite party no.2 but it yielded no result and hence she has filed this writ petition to quash Annexure-5, the merit list and to give directions as narrated above.
3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit, wherein they pleaded that the petitioner made an application for the post of Sikhya Sahayak under the general category. It is alleged that she had not given any caste certificate in evidence of her caste. The authorities after making scrutiny of the candidatures of the applicants published draft select list and after preparation of draft select list, the candidates were called upon to file their respective objection to the said draft list. The said notice was published in local daily on 26.02.2011. Pursuant to publication of the said notice in the local daily, the petitioner filed an objection but she never raised any objection regarding her status under the general category nor made any prayer for inclusion of her name in the list of candidates belonging to the S.E.B.C. category. Thereafter, the authorities prepared the merit list. The specific case of the opposite parties is that the petitioner was treated as a general candidate as her application indicated that she belongs to the general category, secondly no caste certificate indicating that she belongs to the S.E.B.C. category was annexed to the application. As such, she could not be treated as a candidate of the S.E.B.C. category.
34. Furthermore, the opposite parties plead that in the draft select list the petitioner's name was placed in serial no.11 under the general category and, therefore, she is not entitled to be selected to be appointed as Sikhya Sahayak in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement.
5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder, wherein she further stated that she belongs to the Teli community and, as such, belongs to the Socially and Economically Backward Class category and to that effect the Tahasildar, Rairakhol has issued a caste certificate on 09.03.2006. Besides that she has registered her name in the Employment Exchange under S.E.B.C. category on 18.08.2010 and to that effect an Identity Card has been issued in her favour vide Annexure-3. The petitioner further pleads that she is entitled to selection and reservation in the said category and at the same time she is also entitled to the selection under the general category, if she competes with the general candidates and, therefore, she should have been selected, in the alternative, as a general candidate. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities have given appointment to certain candidates, who have secured less marks than her even in the general category and therefore, her case should be considered. In that view of the matter, the original records have been called for and have been examined by the Court.
6. In this case, two essential questions arise for consideration: (i) whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered as a candidate under the S.E.B.C. category and (ii) whether she is entitled being meritorious to be appointed either as an S.E.B.C. candidate or as a general candidate.
7. An examination of her application in original shows that she has applied as a general candidate. Furthermore, the form in which the application has been made provides at column 11 - the document regarding the caste, "X" mark has been put thereon. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had not annexed the caste certificate indicating that she belongs to the S.E.B.C. category. Furthermore, from the documents it is clear that at the first instance she raised an objection regarding her address and correction thereof. This application was made on 28.02.2011.Before that another application without date is found on 4 record, which shows that it was received in the Collectorate on 30th January, 2011. Thereafter on 18.03.2011, she made another application, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, wherein she represented that she has learnt that the candidates who have secured less marks than her have been selected and given appointment in the post of Sikhya Sahayak. The objection regarding caste is not mentioned therein. The fact that she belongs to the S.E.B.C. category is mentioned in the application made on 30.06.2011 but neither the application indicate that she belongs to Teli caste nor any document has been annexed thereto to show that she was Teli by caste. A Xerox copy of the Caste Certificate, annexed to the writ petition, issued on 09.03.2006 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Rairakhol indicates that Kumari Sasmita Sahoo, daughter of Padma Charan Sahoo belongs to Teli Community, which is recognized as a Socially and Economically Backward class by the Government of Orissa. However, a Resident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Banarpal reveals that Smt. Sasmita Sahoo, wife of Abhisek Das is a resident of village Jarasingha in Angul district. Thus, there is no clear proof of her belonging to the S.E.B.C. category. She has not filed a caste certificate issued within six months prior to the date of filing the same from the competent authority, who is the Addl. Tahasildar, Banarpal where she is residing at present.
8. The authorities did not commit any mistake in treating her as a candidate of the general category as she had applied without any caste certificate. Even on her first two representations, she has not raised the contention that she belongs to the S.E.B.C. category and after five months, for the first time, she made such a representation before the authorities. The act of the petitioner has estopped herself from raising this point in the writ application.
9. It is submitted in the alternative that the petitioner even in the general category should have been selected as the candidates who have secured less marks than her have been selected. In order to ascertain this factual aspect, I have examined the merit list of I.A. C.T. trained category of candidates of Angul education district for the selection of Sikhya Sahayat in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. It is seen that amongst the general 5 candidates, the last person who got appointment is Harapriya Pani and she has secured 68.15%, which is much above to the percentage of marks of Sasmita Sahoo, the petitioner, who has secured 65.06% of marks. Among the general category candidates, Archanarani Sahoo having secured 67.47% of marks, Laxmipriya Das having secured 66.6% of marks, Binodini Sahoo having secured 65.38% of marks and Nibedita Singh having secured 65.26% of marks are above the percentage of marks secured by the petitioner and have been placed in the wait list. So the contention raised by the petitioner that the petitioner should have been selected even from among the general category, is not tenable as the same is factually incorrect. Thus, both the questions formulated in this case are answered against the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the reported case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, 2011 (I) OLR (SC) 1105, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the act of not mentioning involvement in a criminal case in the application form is a minor indiscretion, on which the selection of a candidate should not be cancelled. The ratio decided in the aforesaid case is not at all applicable to the case at hand as the facts are distinguishable.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the writ application is without merit and the same is dismissed.
..........................
S.K.Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated, February 03, 2012/JNS.