Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: KANDHAMAL in Niranjan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 5 May, 2023Matching Fragments
05.5.2023.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following relief;
<It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue Rule Nisi by calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the writ/writs shall not be issued in quashing the selection of the Opp.Party No.4 and the Notice dtd.21.10.2019 for counseling under Annexure-10 in respect of the Opp.Party No.4 for the B.A. Bed. Teacher post against the Physically Handicapped (PH) category and further be pleased to direct the Opp.Parties No.2 and 3 to select and appoint the petitioner in the B.A. Bed. Teacher post against the Physically Handicapped (PH) category in the Upgraded High Schools/girls High Schools, Kandhamal District and on perusal of causes shown if any or upon insufficient causes shown make the said rule absolute and may pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.=
2. The case of the Petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Collector, Kandhamal on 7th May, 2018 for appointment to various posts, the Petitioner applied for B.A. Bed. for engagement in upgraded High Schools/Girls' High Schools under SC and ST Development Department of Kandhamal District. Out of the posts advertised under B.A.Bed., one post was reserved for physically handicapped candidate. The Petitioner is a Physically Handicapped candidate and applied under the said category. It was specified in the advertisement that in case of non- availability of suitable candidates from Kandhamal District, application of candidates from other Districts will be taken into consideration. A draft merit list was prepared for candidates of Kandhamal District in which the Petitioner's name found place at Sl. No.41. Another draft merit list was prepared for candidates belonging to other Districts, wherein the name of the Opposite Party No.4 found place at Sl. No.267 under S.C. category. The authorities prepared a combined final merit list and published the final select list on 16th February, 2019, wherein the Opposite Party No.4 was selected against P.H. category even though he belongs to Boudh District. The Petitioner submitted several representations to the Collector, but to no avail. On 21st October, 2017, the District Welfare Officer, Kandhamal (Opposite Party No.3) issued notice to 6 candidates for B.A. Bed. Teacher post for counseling to be held on 30th October, 2019, whereby the Opposite Party No.4 was noticed. It is alleged that the Petitioner being the only available candidate under Physically Handicapped category of Kandhamal District should have been called for counseling instead of Opposite Party No.4, who belongs to Boudh District and had originally applied only under SC category.
4. Be it noted that the private Opposite Party No.4, despite sufficient notice, did not appear to contest this case.
5. The facts as averred in the Writ Petition have not been disputed. It would therefore, be proper to refer to the advertisement (enclosed as Annexure-1) in order to appreciate the contentions raised by the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the advertisement is quoted herein below;
6. It is common ground that the Petitioner belongs to Kandhamal District whereas Opposite Party No.4 belongs to Boudh District. The Petitioner is a physically disabled person. Under such circumstances, the candidature of the Petitioner could not have been ignored. The Opposite Party No.4 was selected and as per the counter, purportedly as per Paragraph-11 of the Government Resolution dated 5th September, 2017. The Opposite parties have referred to the different categories of disabilities wherein blindness and low vision comes under category (1) while locomotor disability comes under category No.(3). It is also mentioned that category No.1 is to be given first preference. There can be no dispute as regards the categorization of the Physically Disabled candidates, but then the same would be relevant only when candidates belonging to the same district are under consideration. In the instant case, the advertisement itself stipulates that candidates from other districts will be considered only if suitable candidates from Kandhamal district are not available. Such is not the case at hand inasmuch as the Petitioner, being admittedly a Physically handicapped candidate belonging to Kandhamal district was very much available for consideration. In fact, his name was also included in the draft select list. The concerned authorities appear to have adopted an erroneous procedure in combining the draft merit list of Kandhamal and other districts to prepare a common merit list, which is not envisaged at all in the advertisement. Therefore, on the face of availability of a suitable candidate from Kandhamal district, the very consideration of candidate from other districts, being directly contrary to the stipulation in the advertisement referred to hereinbefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.