PRAVAKAR JAYASINGH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law and fact are involved in both the Writ Petitions. Thus, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) An advertisement was published by the Director of Secondary Education on 23/2/2019 for recruitment to the posts of contractual Trained Graduate Teachers in Government Schools in P.C.M., C.B.Z and Arts disciplines. 1828 number of posts were offered for recruitment. The advertisement contained the particulars of qualification and method of selection etc. The case of the Petitioners is that they appeared in Online Computer based qualifying examination and having qualified, their names were included in the draft common merit list. They were called upon for document verification from 5th September to 12/9/2019. Their documents were verified and a draft reject list was published and objections were invited from the candidates to submit objections relating to errors if any in the draft common merit list and draft reject list. On 25/10/2019 a provisional select list of the candidates out of the provisional common merit list was published wherein the names of the Petitioners did not find place. Feeling aggrieved, some of the Petitioners challenged the selection process before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20604/2019. By order dtd. 25/2/2020 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.20604 and 20559 of 2019, this Court directed the authorities to consider the grievance of the Petitioners afresh and if they are within the zone of consideration, to take necessary steps for their appointment. A contempt application was also filed being CONTC No.2558/2020, which was disposed of by order dtd. 10/9/2020 directing the Opposite Parties to work out the directions of this Court in order dtd. 25/2/2020 within six months. It is the further case of the Petitioners that out of 1848 vacancies only 1548 candidates were selected. Out of the said 1548 candidates, 1235 candidates joined and the rest 593 candidates did not join, for which such number of posts fell vacant. According to the Petitioners, once some of the selected candidates did not join, the remaining candidates ought to be considered for appointment since they were placed in the provisional common merit list. Moreover, there being large number of vacancies available, the Petitioners should be considered for appointment against such vacancies.

(3.) The case of the Opposite Parties is that undoubtedly common merit list was published, which is the list of all candidates finally found eligible after verification of documents and objections to draft list. In the list all the eligible candidates are arranged in order of marks secured in the Computer based test irrespective of their social/reservation category. Out of the common merit list, the select list of each social reservation category such as SC/ST/SEBC and UR were prepared and published being approved by State Selection Committee. The said lists were prepared taking number of candidates equal to the number of posts advertised for each reservation category. The Petitioners were not included in the draft common merit list as well the final common merit list as they could not come to the range of selection as per their final position in the merit list. It is further stated that publication of select list of 100% of posts advertised has nothing to do with the waiting list. They could not be selected as the select list was limited to number of vacancies advertised and their marks were below the cut-off, i.e. the mark of last candidate of the select list. There is no provision in the advertisement for preparation of second merit list or waiting list so as to consider the case of the Petitioners because of non-joining of some of the finally selected candidates. It has been clarified that there is no cut-off mark for selection but the marks secured by the last candidate in the select list of each category is presumed as the cut-off mark.