RAMESH CHANDRA SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the rejection of his representation by the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Ganjam by order dtd. 12/3/2020, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application.

(2.) An advertisement was published on 8/12/2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates for engagement as Sikshya Sahayak under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Ganjam Chhatrapur. The petitioner submitted his application. His name found place in the third phase Select List and he was directed to attend the District Project Office at Chhatrapur for verification of documents etc. At that time he was asked to produce the Odisha Teacher Eligibility Test (OTET) mark sheet, which he could not as he did not have such qualification. It is stated that the candidates in the first and second phase selection had been engaged without insisting upon OTET qualification and such a condition was raised only during the third phase. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12926 of 2015, which was disposed of by order dtd. 22/7/2015 directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the Collector, Ganjam furnishing all details including copy of the order passed by this Court in the case of Subrat Das and others vs. State of Odisha and others. 2012 (II) ILR-CUT-1050 ; 2012 SCC OnLine Ori 447. Further direction was issued to the Collector to take a decision in accordance with law and to grant the consequential relief to the petitioner, if his case was found to be covered by the Court in the case of Subrat Das (supra). The petitioner submitted a representation on 9/3/2017 along with copy of the order of this Court as well as the judgment in Subrat Das (supra). The representation of the petitioner not having been disposed of within the stipulated time, he again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20361 of 2018 for a direction to consider his case for engagement as Sikahya Sahayak as per third phase selection. By order dtd. 21/12/2018, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Collector to take a decision on the pending representation within three months. Since such order was also not complied, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being CONTC No. 1676 of 2019, which was disposed of by order dtd. 23/9/2019 to comply with the order passed in the writ application within three months. Since the petitioner was not informed anything as regards disposal of the representation, he submitted an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Collector in this regard. In response to such application, it was informed that the representation had been disposed of by the Collector by order dtd. 12/3/2020 and same had also been communicated to him on 13/3/2020.

(3.) It is stated that the petitioner's name finds place at serial No.6 in the third phase select list and his case is squarely covered by the ratio of Subrat Das (supra). In spite of the above, his representation was rejected on the ground that he had not passed OTET Examination and that all the posts had been filled up as per merit list, for which another recruitment process of 2013-14 was also over and further recruitment process of 2014-15 was in progress. It is stated that the judgment of this Court in Subrat Das was well within the knowledge of the opposite parties at the time of submission of his representation on 7/9/2015 and therefore, he should have been given engagement. It is further stated that only four numbers of OTET pass candidates out of 1221 were engaged. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief.