JHARANA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present case relates to engagement of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks in Koraput Education District. In response to an advertisement issued by the State Government dated 26.3.2003 vide Annexure -1 the petitioner along with many others applied for being engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks. The petitioner asserts that she is possessing requisite qualification and she is otherwise eligible for being engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak. According to her she has married to Sri Bijaya Kumar Sahoo in the year 1999 and is residing at Chatwa in the Education District of Koraput with her husband. In support of her stand she had submitted a Resident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Machkund in Miscellaneous Certificate Case No. 24/2003 vide Annexure -6.

(2.) ACCORDING to the instruction issued by the Collector as per Annexure -9, before finalizing the provisional select list, the Committee had to examine as to whether a candidate was permanently residing along with his/her parents or independently in the concerned education district for more than twelve years. But then the advertisement issued stipulated that a candidate would be eligible for engagement if he/she was a resident of the concerned education district and had registered the name in the Employment Exchange. In support of such assertion, a candidate was required to submit a resident certificate issued by the competent authority under the Rules framed by the State. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, selection was to be made in consonance with the stipulations in the advertisement calling for applications. The eligibility criteria could not be changed, modified or imposed in the mid -way of selection process. According to the learned counsel, issuance of the instructions vide Annexure -9 was contrary to the advertisement Annexure -1 and, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the Selection Committee should be directed to consider the candidature of the applicants on the basis of the resident certificates issued by the concerned authorities, and strictly adhering to the stipulations made in the Notification/Advertisement, Annexure -1 inviting applications, and the instructions issued, vide Annexure -9, should be struck down.

(3.) I have perused the materials available meticulously and considered the submissions diligently. The advertisement dated 26.3.2003, Annexure -1 issued inviting applications for selection of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak clearly stipulated that a candidate should have possessed C.T. Training; should have registered his/her name in any of the employment exchanges of the District; and should have been a resident of the concerned Education District. The candidates were required to submit Resident Certificate issued by the authorized officer. It appears that the petitioner in support of her stand that she was residing in the Education District, strictly inconsonance with the terms embodied had submitted the Resident certificate, Annexure -6, issued by the Tahasildar, Machkund who was the competent authority, indicating that she was residing in Village Chatwa in the District of Koraput. Such certificate of the petitioner was in consonance with the stipulations made in the advertisement. Perusal of the advertisement clearly reveals that there was no stipulation with regard to permanent residency in the District for more than twelve years as had been insisted upon vide Annexure -9.