MAMATA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) The petitioner's case is that pursuant to advertisement issued vide Notification dtd. 26/12/2016 by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government in School and Mass Education Department to fill up 14087 posts of Sikhya Sahayaks in 22 districts, the petitioner submitted her application online. It is stated that as per Clause-2(iii) of the said Notification, the petitioner submitted her option for 22 districts, with the first preference district being Bolangir and the 22nd being Malkangiri. She was asked to attend the verification of her original certificates on 1/2/2018. Thereafter, the eligible list of candidates was published, wherein her name found place at serial No.472. By a further Notification dtd. 1/12/2017 issued in pursuance of order passed by this Court in another writ application, over-aged candidates were called upon to apply. In the selection that followed only first two options were taken into account by the authorities. As a result, only 9951 posts were filled up leaving 4136 posts vacant. It is further stated that the other options exercised by the candidates including the petitioner were not taken into consideration, but had such exercise been undertaken the petitioner would have definitely been selected for the post. In the meantime, she having become over-aged is no longer eligible to apply in case any fresh advertisement is issued. It is further stated that this Court in the case of Babita Satpathy v. State of Odisha 2020 SCC ONLINE ORI 921, directed engagement of Sikshya Sahayaks against unfilled vacancies. Such order passed in writ appeal has since been confirmed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner submitted several representations to the authorities but no action was taken, for which she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.9290 of 2021. By order dtd. 17/3/2021, this Court directed the Secretary of the Department to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within three months. Since the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed CONTC No. 3666 of 2021, which was disposed of by this Court on 9/7/2021 directing the authority to comply with the order within three months. The petitioner again filed contempt application being CONTC No. 6230 of 2021. During pendency of the said application, it was informed by the State Counsel that the petitioner's representation had been rejected by order dtd. 7/3/2022. As such, the petitioner withdrew the contempt application and filed the present writ application seeking to challenge the order of rejection. It is stated that the rejection of the petitioner's application is on untenable grounds and that the authorities had not adhered to the procedure laid down in Clause-(v) of the advertisement, for which less meritorious candidates were appointed. Specific reference has been made to two vacant posts of SEBC category in Jajpur where, according to the petitioner, she could have been engaged.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of all opposite parties by opposite party No.3. It is stated that a draft merit list was prepared taking into consideration all district preferences submitted by the candidates in the order of preference followed by merit, i.e. after exhausting all candidates with first preference districts, second and third and subsequent preferences has been considered. It is further stated that the petitioner secured 169.733 marks, which was below the cut-off mark for SEBC (W) candidates being 196.333 in the first round. In the second round also she could not be selected because of securing less marks than the cut-off marks. Two rounds of selection process were held for filling up 100% posts and in both rounds of selection all the preference choice districts of the candidates were considered. 4136 numbers of posts remained unfilled due to non-joining of selected candidates and non-availability of eligible candidates in respective social and educational category as per their preference choice. The petitioner was not found suitable as the cut-off mark of SEBC category in the second round selection of the district was 204.411 whereas she has secured 169.733. It is further stated that the judgment of this Court in the case of Babita Satpathy (supra) is not applicable to the petitioner.