SARAT KUMAR DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the Appellant-opposite party No. 5 questioning the correctness of the order dated 24.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2007* allowing the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 5 with a direction that the Appellant be removed from service and in his place Respondent No. 5 be given appointment as Gram Rojagar Sevak in respect of Solabandh Gram Panchayat in the district of Bolangir urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged at the Bar in this appeal with a view to find out as to whether the impugned order warrants any interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction bearing in mind that substantial question that would arise in this appeal may be required to be answered.

(3.) Pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-3 dated 28.9.2006 published in the daily English Newspaper, both the Appellant and Respondent No. 5 submitted their applications for the post of Multi Purpose Assistance (for short, "Gram Rojagar Sevak") in respect of Solabandh Gram Panchayat under Patnagarh Block. As per the advertisement, the Minimum qualification for the said post was 10+2 passed. Further, it was stated therein that the applicants of commerce stream and applicants with computer proficiency of 'O' level with use of Oriya language in Computer would be preferred. It is the case of Respondent No. 5 that he had passed +2 Arts in C.H.S.E. Examination in the year 2002 having secured 46.89 marks and he had completed 12 months' Diploma Course in Computer Application. Although he was qualified for the post the authorities instead of selecting him selected one Bidyadhar Majhi who was ineligible to the post. Aggrieved of the said selection, Respondent No. 5 made representation to Respondent No. 3-Project Director, D.R.D.A., Bolangir, but the same was not considered. Therefore, he filed W.P.(C) No. 16809 of 2006 before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 27.1.2007 with direction to finalize the representation within one month from the date of receipt of that order. Respondent No. 3 instead of considering the case of Respondent No. 5 gave appointment to the present Appellant though he had no requisite qualification to the post. Therefore, Respondent No. 5 filed W.P.(C) No. 4882 of 2007 in which the impugned order was passed. The writ petition was opposed by the Appellant justifying the selection and appointment to the post in question contending inter alia that he passed Upashastri from Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya, Puri which is equivalent to 10+2 Examination conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa as per the Regulations, 1982 published in the Extraordinary Orissa Gazette dated 21st October, 1982. Further, it was stated that the said Regulations were framed in pursuance of Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Ordinance, 1982. Regulation 12 empowers the Council to pass resolution treating a particular course as equivalent to 10+2 in its ordinary meeting of the council and he has placed reliance upon Annexure-C, the notification No. 1526 dated 18th February, 1986, wherein it is mentioned that the Equivalence Committee of the Council has recognized the Upashastri Course of the said institution as equivalent to the Humanities Stream of Higher Secondary Education Orissa subject to the approval of the Council. The same has been approved by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa in its meeting held on 27.7.2009 at Item No. 6, wherein the said item was moved by Dr. Pravat Kumar Routray, and the Chairman and Members present in the meeting approved the same and the equivalence resolution was passed giving retrospective effect vide notification dated 18.2.1986, which is enclosed to the said resolution. Therefore, it is submitted that the Appellant has got the equivalent certificate approved by the Council. Hence, Upashastri course completed by the Appellant is equivalent to 10+2, which is the qualification prescribed by the post in question. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the same was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, but the same was not accepted by him. Therefore, the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 5 was allowed holding that Respondent No. 5 secured the highest mark in +2 level and the Appellant was wrongly selected, which is erred in law. Hence, he has filed the present appeal.