RAJANIGANDHA MOHANTA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted two writ petitions arise out of same cause of action, as the petitioners therein seek to quash the second list of candidates qualified in the written test held on 25/9/2011 under Annexure-7, proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the selection board held in the office of the D.F.O., Karanjia Division on 21/12/2011 under Annexure-8, the notice dtd. 24/12/2012 with regard to final select list under Annexure-9, as well as the order dtd. 4/8/2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. NO.770(C) of 2012 and batch under Annexure-12. They further seek direction to the opposite parties to consider them as eligible and appoint them as against the vacant posts meant for female candidates. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment, which will govern in both the cases.

(2.) The factual matrix, which led to filing of these writ petitions, shortly put, is as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were selected pursuant to written test held on 25/9/2011 and, thereafter, they were directed to appear before opposite party no.4 for verification of original certificates, measurement of physical standard and cycling test on 12/10/2011, 13/10/2011 and 14/10/2011 respectively and also they were declared successful. Therefore, they could not have been declared disqualified in the written test without affording opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that if the opposite parties found any mistake in the result of the written test, then they could have withdrawn the select list and conducted a re-test cancelling the 1st result. Without doing so, the opposite parties invited the petitioners to attend the viva voce test and, therefore, they are estopped to declare that the petitioners could not qualify in the written test. Since the petitioners were qualified in written test, certificate verification, measurement of physical standard and cycling test, their legitimate expectation would be to get employment, but the select list was modified on the ground that there were mistakes in the declaration of selected candidates in the written test and published the second list, which cannot have any justification. It is further contended that in the proceedings of the meeting held on 21/12/2011, it was reflected that revised mark-sheet was communicated to opposite party no.4 by the RCCF-cum-FD-STR, Baripada on 4/11/2011 which superseded the former mark-sheet, and that altogether names of 113 candidates, i.e., 84 (as per the first mark-sheet) and 29 new (as per revised mark-sheet) were considered for the exercise of certificate verification. The selection board conducted viva voce test of 58 candidates, including the petitioners, who were alleged to have been failed in the written test as per the revised mark sheet. Therefore, it is contended that the entire procedure adopted by the opposite parties is de-hors the rules. The Tribunal, while disposing of the Original Applications, vide common order dtd. 17/7/2014, failed to appreciate the wrong committed by the opposite parties. Thereby, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record so as to cause interference of this Court at this stage.