SUDEEPTA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner invokes the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to give appointment to her as a Contract Hindi Teacher with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The foundational facts under which the petitioner has filed this writ are, pursuant to an advertisement issued by OPNo.2, the petitioner and others applied for the post of Contract Teacher (Hindi) in Mayurbhanj District and, thereafter, a provisional merit list of Contract Teachers (Hindi) was prepared by OPNo.3 for the year 2012-13 for Government and Upgraded High Schools, but the petitioner noticed her name in the merit list at Serial No.250. It is alleged by the petitioner that the date of birth, employment exchange registration no. and marks secured by her etc. were incorrect and she further noticed that her date of birth, employment exchange registration no. and marks obtained in different subjects had been assigned to the candidate at Serial No.6 of the list namely one Sudha Kumari and, accordingly, the petitioner made an objection on 15/12/2012 before OPNos.2 and 3, but in vain. OPNo.3 accordingly prepared the final merit list category wise for posting of Contract Teachers (Hindi) and the petitioner noticed that the candidates who had secured less mark than her had been selected. According to the petitioner, she had secured 260.406 marks, whereas candidates securing less mark at 250.025, 249.026, 246.800, 222.293, 216.895, 208.725, 240.567 and 237.478 had been selected. It is also found by the petitioner that her OBC certificate has not been taken into consideration, while preparing the final merit list. Finding no way out, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ claiming violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts in the writ has submitted that although the petitioner was eligible for the post of Contract Teacher (Hindi), but after getting the application from the candidates, OPNo.3 prepared the draft merit list, wherein the petitioner was stated to have secured 260.405% marks, whereas one Sudha Kumari placed at Serial No. 6 of the list had secured 136. 721% of marks and after getting notice, OPNo.3 has changed and corrected the provisional merit list prepared earlier by one revised merit list and, thereby, one person namely Rajalaxmi Behera, a SEBC women who was not having qualification as per the advertisement, was provided appointment, but the petitioner was denied of appointment, even though she was having same qualification as that of Rajalaxmi Behera. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Mohanty has prayed to allow the writ by directing the OPs to give appointment to the petitioner.