NAREN KUMAR BARIK Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri S. N. Misra, learned Counsel1 appearing for the School and Mass Education Department.

(2.) THE petitioner, a member of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of the State, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction on O.P, Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the Chief Executive of Zilla Parishad -cum -Collector and District Magistrate, Angul, and Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Angul, respectively, to publish the merit list of selection and appoint him in the post of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak under B.Ed. physically handicapped category in Angul education district.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. In paragraph 10 of the said counter affidavit the O.Ps. have mainly dealt with the allegations made in the writ petition and have stated that taking the education district as one unit for selection, a select list of 31 candidates was prepared and published showing two candidates as physically handicapped under C.T. category and as there was only 19 posts under B.Ed. category and 3% of reservation for P.M. is less than one, no P.H. candidate was taken from the B.Ed. category. So far as the case of the petitioner as S.E.B.C. candidate is concerned, according to the O.Ps., as the petitioner has secured less percentage of mark, i.e. 44. 83%, he could not be selected under the S.E.B.C. category since the last selected candidate of S.E.B.C. had secured 58.98% of mark. According to Shri Rath for the petitioner, as the petitioner has been shown as P.H. candidate in the merit list under B.Ed. category (Annexure -3) and as he belonged to the S.E.B.C., the issue that falls for determination boils down to the question as to whether 3% of the vacancies which comes to 0.57 can be construed to be 'one' or there shall be no reservation for P.H. candidate under B.Ed category.