SRINIBASH KAR Vs. STATE OF ORRISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner prays for issuing direction against the opposite parties to engage him as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak as per the advertisement dated 14.10.2006. The petitioner was an applicant for such a post. It is pleaded that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person being 75% visually impaired (one eye). He applied for the post along with the educational and disability certificates. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that for Cuttack District there was fourteen number of Tahasils, for which advertisement has been brought out. It is further stated that as per the circular issued by the Government of Orissa, Department of School and Mass Education Department for engagement of blind candidates for Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak under the reserved category should be strictly followed in accordance with section- 33 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The present petitioner appeared in the interview and successfully performed to the best of his ability and stood second in the physically handicapped (visual impaired) category under the Nischinta Koili Block of Cuttack District. Thereafter, the opposite parties started issuing engagement orders to the candidates under the Cuttack Zilla Parishad. The petitioner came to know that the selection has been made without due process of law more particularly the O.R.V. Act and other principles of reservation had not been followed. Then the petitioner applied under the R.T.I. Act about the number of person engaged and the physically handicapped vacancies in Nischinta Koili Block. As per information under the R.T.I. Act the petitioner came to know that the number of vacancies and 50% posts of which are not yet been filled up till date and two posts are lying vacant in the Nischinta Koili Block. Thereafter, he made several representations before the authorities, but could not get any relief. Thereafter the Government again advertised for the post of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak for the year 2010-2011. As the petitioner has become age barred and being a physically handicapped person and no other source to maintain himself, he has, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the advertisement dated 24.1.2011.

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 2 to 4. The specific plea taken by them is that after the advertisement of the year 2006 the Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into force on 1.4.2010 and, accordingly, engagement of Sikshya Sahayak is against the residuary post of the previous years and also the newly created posts have been taken up in the recent advertisement. In the meantime, the engagement process pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.1.2011 as per Government Resolution dated 10.1.2011 has been completed. It is further pleaded that the petitioner's case relates to engagement of Sikshya Sahayak for the year 2006, who has made a representation for the first time at a belated stage on 31.1.2009. It is further pleaded that the selection list prepared on 6.12.2006 expired on 7.12.2007. Since the validity period of selected list is for one year as per the advertisement, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected as per order dated 25.3.2010, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. Thereafter the petition has been filed after more than a year. It is, therefore, contended that filing of the writ petition is misconceived both in facts and law, inasmuch as his claim relating to the year 2006 does not survive, more so while there is no post for the said year as the said post has been merged with the post advertised under Annexure-12 and the petitioner did not apply in pursuant thereto. Rest of the allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. They claimed that the engagement has been made per the O.R.V. Rules and other Acts guiding engagement of Sikshya Sahayak.

(3.) In course of hearing, notice of the Court was brought to the fact that in a similar case as per the order of this Court the DPC has taken a view that the vacancy of Sikshya Sahayak shall not be filled up from the selection list prepared in the year 2006. In W.P. (C) No. 11926 of 2008 a Bench of this Court has come to the conclusion that the vacancy that has arisen in the meantime should not be filled up from the list prepared for the advertisement of the year 2006. On the other hand, it was further directed that the authorities should take expeditious steps for initiation of fresh recruitment process and engage candidates from the select list.