UMAKANTA CHHOTARAY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the impugned order dtd. 11/11/2019 as at Annexure-8 and to direct the opposite parties to appoint him as an Assistant Driver having participated in the selection process and to release all service and consequential benefits in his favour upon such appointment on the grounds inter alia that the decision of opposite party No.2 is not legally tenable, hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that an advertisement was published by opposite party No.3 to fill up 437 posts of Assistant Driver stipulating therein the eligibility criteria. A copy of the advertisement is at Annexure-1, referring to which, it is pleaded by the petitioner that he being an SEBC category candidate applied to be considered for appointment as Assistant Driver and although found to be meritorious, some of the candidates of the UR category securing less marks were selected with the merit list finally published as per Annexure-2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that information under the RTI Act was applied to him and it was furnished vide Annexure-3 and with such information received, it is alleged that on the face of record, illegality has been committed denying him the appointment, inasmuch as, the select list could not have been prepared in the manner contemplated. It is further claimed that the SEBC candidates secured more marks than the candidates of UR category but have not been selected, since, the petitioner secured 46.5 marks higher than the cut-off mark for the UR candidates. Against such selection and merit list prepared and as the petitioner was not successful, the same has been questioned.

(3.) In fact, the advertisement to fill up the posts of Assistant Driver in Odisha Police Motor Transport was published in the year 2013 and the result was declared on 17/11/2013 but, some of the Home Guard candidates filed O.A. No.3931(C) of 2013 in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal with a plea of 10% horizontal reservation having not been applied and while implementing the order dtd. 7/5/2014 passed therein, number of candidates earlier selected were terminated from service in the year 2015 on the ground that they had availed age and fee relaxation. Thereafter, O.A. No.4308(C) of 2014 was filed and disposed of with the select list being quashed followed by a direction to redraw the same. In compliance of the directions issued in the said O.A., a revised select list was published on 8/4/2016, wherein, 71 candidates were included with 55 candidates being delisted. According to the petitioner, even after redrawal of the revised select list, some of the candidates, who secured less marks than him were allowed to continue but he was not, despite a representation to opposite party No.2, who rejected it on the ground that the marks scored by him to be less than the cut-off mark for SEBC candidates.