BIKASH MAHALIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category and is serving as Junior Clerk in the establishment of Collectorate, Boudh, has filed this writ petition to quash the show-cause notice dtd. 31/3/2015 under Annexure-13 issued by opposite party no.3 directing him to give reply within 30 days from the date of its receipt as to why his services shall not be terminated; as well as letter dtd. 9/2/2015 under Annexure-13/1 issued by opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.1 intimating for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the final list and his removal from service on the ground of violation of G.A. Department Notification; and the letter dtd. 26/3/2015 under Annexure-13/2 issued by the Joint Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department to opposite party no.2 recommending for issuance of show-cause notice prior to termination of the petitioner from service. He further seeks direction to the opposite parties to allow him to continue as Junior Clerk as usual with all service and financial benefits, as stipulated in the appointment order under Annexure-7 dtd. 26/11/2013, as he was validly recruited as per the statute.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that opposite party no.3-Collector and District Magistrate, Boudh issued an advertisement dtd. 8/7/2013, captioned as "Special Recruitment Drive for ST/SC" to fill up the vacant posts of Jr. Stenographer/Jr. Clerk/ Revenue Inspector/Assistant Revenue Inspector/Amin. So far as the vacancy position of Jr. Clerk is concerned, total vacancies were 16 and the posts were distributed as per post based roster i.e. 8 posts meant for ST, 4 posts meant for ST (W), 3 posts meant for SC and 1 post meant for SC (W). For recruitment to the posts of Jr. Clerk, the candidate shall have to appear written test and practical computer skill test as provided in appendix to Rule-10 of Odisha Ministerial Service Rules, 1985, as amended vide notification dtd. 12/4/2010. As per appendix, opposite party no.3 had specified in the advertisement, that the competitive examination shall consist of written test and practical skill test. The written test shall consist of paper-1 for 3 hours and paper-II for 3 hours. Each paper consists of two parts. Paper-1 consists of Part-1, Language Test (English and Oriya) and Part-II, Objective General Knowledge, carrying each 100 marks and the duration of examination was three hours. Similarly Paper-II consists of Part-1, Objective Mathematics and Part-II, Basic Computer Skill carrying each 100 marks. Total mark of written test (Paper-1 and Paper-II) was 400. The maximum mark of practical skill test i.e. Basic Computer Skill (Objective) was 50. Therefore, total maximum mark was 450 as provided under the statute. In similar manner, another advertisement dtd. 08/7/2013 was issued in order to fill up the posts of Junior Clerks and other posts from among the UR and SEBC category.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of provisions contained in appendix to Rule-10 of the Orissa Ministerial Services (Method of Recruitment to the Posts of Junior Clerks in District Offices) Rules, 1985, a candidate has to appear in the written test for maximum marks of 400 and practical skill test of maximum marks of 50 and on the basis of aggregate marks secured in both tests, the merit list/select list has to be prepared for appointment as Junior Clerk. Accordingly, opposite party no.3 conducted the written test and practical skill test for total maximum marks of 450 and on the basis of total marks secured in both the tests, opposite party no.3 rightly prepared the merit list. The petitioner was selected and his name found place at Sl. No.2, pursuant to which he joined as Junior Clerk. Subsequently, the G.A. Department, vide notification dtd. 12/4/2010, notified that the practical skill test shall be qualifying in nature and the marks awarded in practical skill test should not be added to the marks secured by the candidates in the written test examination. But such notification of the G.A. Department cannot have any justification, as it cannot supersede the statutory provisions contained in Rules, 1985. It is further contended that opposite party no.2, has arbitrarily directed opposite party no.3 to redraw the merit list by excluding the marks of practical skill test, which is absolutely an outcome of non-application of mind. It is further contended that opposite party no.2, vide letter dtd. 9/2/2015 at Annexure-13/1 issued with regard to the special recruitment drive for the post of Jr. Clerk, directed that the petitioner need to be deleted from the final merit list and removed from the service, because of the reason that he had been awarded 31 marks in practical skill test and thus 31 marks when added to written test marks 234, he secured 2nd position and as per law, the practical test mark is not to be added with aggregate marks of Paper-I and Paper-II and as a consequence his position does not remain in the final merit list. Such a direction contained in Annexure-13/1, being in violation of G.A. Department notification, cannot sustain in the eye of law, as the same is hit by principle of estoppel. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the same. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pratima Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2021 (I) OLR 174.