SRIMATI SUKANTILATA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks a mandamus to the opposite parties directing them to admit her to the B. Ed. course in one of the Government Training Colleges.

(2.) PROSPECTUS was issued inviting applications for admission to the 1984 -85 B. Ed. course conducted by the Government Training Colleges at Cuttack, Balasore, Berhampur, Sambalpur, Bolangir and Angul. There were 860 seats in all. 50 per cent thereof was reserved for in -service graduate teachers of the State, 5 seats were reserved for the wives and children of defence personnel and ex -service personnel and 10 seats were reserved for the candidates for the outlying Oriya speaking tracts. 405 seats were available for fresh candidates. The 405 seats were distributed district wise according to population, taking the 1971 census figures as the basis. An applicant was required to submit the application form duly filled in and to indicate two options as regards the colleges to which he/she desired admission. If the candidate desired admission to a college other than the one mentioned against his/her home district, he/she was required to furnish sufficient reason. Clause 13 of the prospectus required that the applicant should furnish a residence certificate to the effect that he/she was a bona fide resident of the district of the State or outlying Oriya speaking tract. The certificate was to be given by a Gazetted Officer/Headmastec of the Government High School/M. L. A. or M. P. of the State.

(3.) THE petitioner has alleged that her application was scrutinised by the authorities and she was called for an interview. Obviously, therefore, her application was not rejected under Clause 26 of the prospectus. Clause 26 of the prospectus provided that the application would be rejected (i) if it was incomplete in any respect, (ii) was not sent to B. Ed. Central Selection Board and Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Unit -V, Bhubaneswar, or (iii) if the residence certificate was not furnished in the body of the form. An admit card (Annexure -2) was issued to her and she appeared before the Selection Board at Balasore on 16. 7.1984. She was directed by the Board to appear for an interview before the State Council of Educational Research and Training, Bhubaneswar, as her residential district was different from the home district. On 18.7.1984, she apperred before the Selection Board, Bhubaneswar. ' The petitioner has alleged that though she did well, at the interview, she has come to learn that she has been refused admission on the ground that her residential district was different from her home district.