LADU KISHOR PATRO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks direction to the opposite parties for issuance of order of appointment in his favour in the post of Excise constable, pursuant to the proceeding of District Selection Committee constituted for recruitment of Excise constables of Berhampur Excise District in accordance with physical standard test and written test held on 15.11.2011 to 16.11.2011 and 11.12.2011 in Annexure-1.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Government of Odisha in Excise Department, vide notification no. 2650/Estt. dated 08.06.2011, issued an advertisement, which was published in print media i.e. daily newspaper "The Samaj" on 09.09.2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment of ten nos. of Excise constables in Berhampur Excise District under different categories, which reads as follows:

(3.) Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly, as per the advertisement, three posts of Excise constable from the SEBC category were to be filled up, out of which two male and one female. Since no female candidate of SEBC category qualified, as per the proceeding of the District Selection Committee, the post reserved for the female candidate of the SEBC category was suggested to be filled up by male candidate of the corresponding category. Thereby, appointment letter was issued in favour of G. Krishna Rao, who stood at serial no.3 of the SEBC category, against de-reserved post of SEBC female candidate. Thereafter, one Kanhu Charan Pradhan, who stood first in the merit list of the SEBC category, did not join in spite of repeated intimation. Thereby, one post remained vacant in SEBC male category. The petitioner, being at serial no.4 in the merit list, said post which is lying vacant should be filled up by appointing him. Against non-issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner, he has filed this writ petition and, as such, it is contended that the action of the authority in denying appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law, which violates Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.