STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ROJALIN MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Odisha and its functionaries have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 21/7/2017 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 2728 of 2013, by which the tribunal has directed them to call the applicant-opposite party for certificate/ documents verification and, if she is otherwise found eligible and suitable, to give her appointment against unfilled post in SEBC category, and that in event she is appointed, to count her appointment w.e.f. the date the other persons have been appointed, maintaining her seniority below them, and to extend her the notional financial benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that an advertisement was issued for the post of contract teacher in TGT (CBZ), pursuant to which opposite party no.1 submitted her application under SEBC (W) category. Though her position in the merit list was at sl. no. 39 and at sl. no. 1 in SEBC category, yet she was not called for the certificate verification. As such benefit was illegally denied to her, she approached the tribunal.

(3.) Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department appearing for the State-petitioners vehemently contended that since the last person in the merit list belonging to SEBC category had secured 197.254% of marks, whereas opposite party no.1 had secured 196.157% of marks, thereby she was not selected. But, it is contended that 7 candidates, out of 8 vacancies meant for SEBC category, were given appointment and, as such, one post was lying vacant belonging to SEBC category. It is further contended that as against SEBC (W) category no candidate was selected, therefore, the said post remained vacant. Consequentially, it is contended that the tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by issuing direction to give appointment to opposite party no.1 against the unfilled post of SEBC category. As a result, it is contended that the order of the tribunal cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.