TARUNAKANTI SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Admit.

(2.) THE petitioner assails her disengagement from the post of Swechhasebi Sikhya Sahayak by the Collector, Bhadrak.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No.3 has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, alleging that the Collector, Bhadrak after due adjudication and personal hearing rejected her representation. It is specifically pleaded that during verification of mark -sheet of the petitioner, pursuant to the notice no. 14097(177) dated 07.11.2008, it came to light that the calculation of marks of +2 examination was wrongly made, as a result of which, she was selected as Sikhya Sahayak. As per norm, it is pleaded extra optional marks are not to be calculated to prepare merit panel in pursuance of G.O. No. 29557 dated 04.11.2000. It is further pleaded that in this case the mark -sheet reveals that she has secured 492 marks including extra optional marks of 40. But cross checking on 18.11.2008 it was confirmed that she has secured 492 -40=452 mark out of 1000. Accordingly, her position came down so as not to be considered for engagement as Sikhya Sahayak. Though the opposite party admits that no notice to show -cause was issued, she had appeared on 18.11.2008 and was explained the result of reduction of marks. Moreover, the Collector in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2009 also informed the result of her disengagement. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner was selected and engaged as Sikhya Sahayak on wrong calculation of her marks. Hence, her engagement was recalled. It is seen from the order dated 29.05.2009 at Annexure -9 that the Collector held that the petitioner has secured 452 marks out of 1000 in +2 Arts Examination in 2002. But after scrutiny, the Collector further observed, her mark was wrongly mentioned as 492 out of 1000, which was subsequently detected and rectified. Thus, the Collector held that the petitioner became ineligible for the post of SS basing on the merit list published on 30.10.2007. Therefore, it is held by the Collector that in consonance of the above scrutiny, the petitioner was lawfully disengaged vide order No. 14335 dated 26.11.2008.