PRADEEP KUMAR GOCHHAYAT Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three writ petitions, having been filed impugning the order dtd. 9/5/2014 passed by the Mission Director, NHM, Odisha-opposite party no.2 denying the reservation and age relaxation to the petitioners for appointment to the post of Ayush Doctor under Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK), involve common questions of law and facts. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment which will govern all the cases.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are members of Socially Economically Backward Class (SEBC). For the sake of convenience and for just and proper adjudication of the cases, the factual matrix of W.P.(C) No.10024 of 2014 is referred to in a nut shell.

(3.) Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that opposite party no.2 invited applications for contractual appointment of Ayush Doctor (Ayurvedic) under a scheme on 21/2/2014 under Annexure- 11 applying reservation for all the categories including SEBC category. Thereby, the advertisement dtd. 31/12/2013 issued by the authority without keeping any reservation under RBSK scheme, is contrary to the provisions of law and violative of judgment dtd. 21/3/2014 passed by this Court under Annexure-7. It is further contended that opposite party no.2 has also maintained reservation for SEBC candidates in the year 2008 and 2012 and also extended age relaxation for ineligible candidates. Due to non-extension of such benefit in the advertisement dtd. 31/12/2013, the action of the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, as the same is discriminatory one. More so, the order dtd. 9/5/2014 under Annexure-10 has been passed by the authority without adhering to the direction issued by this Court vide judgment dtd. 21/3/2014 under Annexure-7. As a consequence thereof, the order so passed by the authority cannot sustain in the eye of law.