SAKHI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ODISSA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful opposite party no.5 in W.P. (C) No.6615 of 2010 is the appellant in this appeal questioning the correctness of the order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6615 of 2010 allowing the writ petition urging certain grounds and prayed for setting aside the impugned order and restoring the order dated 20.3.2010 of the appellate authority in A.W.W.Misc.(A) No.47 of 2008.

(2.) BRIEF facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged in this appeal to find out as to whether the appellant is entitled for the relief claimed.

(3.) THE said order was sought to be justified by the respondent no.5 strongly placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Diptimayee Parida referred to supra and the guidelines enumerated under the Scheme framed by the State Government in exercise of executive power under rule 162. Further learned counsel Mr.Misra has also placed reliance upon another decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt,, AIR 1998 SC 91 in support of the proposition of law that the cut of date for ascertaining the eligibility as prescribed in the advertisement is the date of application. The respondent was not eligible on the said date. She was appointed on account of interim order of the Court which was made subject to out come of the petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made observation that she services of the selected candidates are liable to be discontinued. Sympathetic view on ground that respondent had been continued and subsequently been confirmed cannot be taken into consideration because ignoring cut -off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualification was flexible. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of an individual may therefore cause injustice to others who had not applied because of the cut of date. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require interference by this Court as there is no substantial question of law that would arise for consideration of this Court.