RAMAKANTA PARHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners pray to quash the order passed by the Collector, Bhadrak on 16.09.2011 in Misc. Case No.8 of 2010 and to direct the opposite parties to engage the petitioners as Sikhya Sahayak under the physically handicapped category and to grant them consequential benefits including back wages, seniority etc. from the date the first batch of candidates appointed in Bhadrak district as per the advertisement dated 14.10.2006.

(2.) THE petitioners having +2 Arts C.T. qualification applied for the post of Sikhya Sahayak under the physically handicapped category of Basudevpur Block under Bhadrak district in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Director on 14.10.2006. The petitioners further claimed that they were duly selected for engagement as Sikhya Sahayak, hereinafter referred as 'SS for brevity, by the authorities under the physically handicapped category, they were then called upon to sign on an agreement. The petitioners appeared before the authorities and also signed the agreement, but no engagement order has been given to them nor copies of the agreement were supplied to them on a plea that the select list is to be revised because the provisions of the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies Act has not been followed. The selection of the candidates under the physically handicapped category according to the petitioners has been deleted. It is further pleaded that the physically handicapped category itself is a reserved category, it admits no further reservation on the basis of candidates belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe categories. It is further pleaded that in violation of such rule of law, the authorities have prepared the select list by giving reservation to those reserved candidates under the physically handicapped category, in the process, persons those who have secured less percentage of marks than these petitioners have been engaged ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioners.

(3.) THE petitioners further pleaded that in view of the order passed by this Court, the entire selection for the post of SS from the physically handicapped category ought to have been considered afresh and the list was to be prepared afresh in consonance of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The Collector, Bhadrak, however, rejected the claim of those two persons on the ground that the selection list has lost its life in the passage of time i.e. one year. Thereafter, said two persons filed two separate writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos. 347 of 2009 and 348 of 2009, where this Court took the view that the action of the Collector is contemptuous and issued notice to show cause. It is further pleaded that by antedating the orders in file, the Collector in a hurry just before his relief on transfer, issued appointment order in favour of those two persons as SS without recasting the entire list and without verifying the relative merit of other candidates, those who have not come to the Court. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 15565 of 2008, which has been disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation to the Collector, Bhadrak, who shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation, but it is submitted that by passing a cryptic order, the Collector, Bhadrak rejected their claim and has illegally held that the ratio decided in the case of Mahesh Gupta v. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, on the basis of such pleading, the petitioners urge that the order passed by the Collector should be quashed and they should be engaged as Sikhya Sahayaks.