SANTOSH KUMAR GOUDA Vs. COLLECTOR, KORAPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS is the second Writ application filed by the petitioner who aspires to be engaged as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner satisfies all the eligibility criteria. He had secured 104.32% marks, but for reasons best known to the opposite party -authorities his name did not find place in the select list of S.E.B.C. (Male) candidates.

(3.) THE matter was thereafter listed on 13.11.2003 when Mr. D.P.Sarangi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that he had received instructions in the case and prayed for some time to file counter -affidavit and therefore the matter was adjourned to 15.12.2003. On 15.12.2003, Mr. R.Behera, learned counsel appearing for the School and Mass Education Department, again prayed for some more time as the last chance to file counter affidavit. Thereafter the matter was listed on 8.1.2004 when once again adjournment was sought. Then the matter was listed on 5.2.2004 when this Court again granted time to the State counsel to file counter -affidavit. When the matter was taken up today, it appears that no counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the School and Mass Education Department. Though notice was served on opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, they have also not chosen to appear. In view of the fact that State has chosen not to file any counter -affidavit, it is evident that it does not deny the averments made in the Writ application and the averments of the petitioner are accepted on the principle of non -traverse.