SWADHIN KUMAR BARIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions, since a common question arises for determination, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners in all the writ petitions were applicants for being appointed as Swechha Sevi Sikhya Sahyak (for short, ) and alleged to have been discriminated by the opp.parties in the process of selection for appointment to such posts. It is admitted that one of the qualifications required for being appointed as S.S.S.S. was that the candidate should be trained and must have obtained a certificate of Certified Training Course (C.T.). All the petitioners allege that they have obtained degree of Sikshya Visarad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the Government of Orissa has considered such qualification from the said Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to C.T. The petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions have further alleged that even though they posses such certificates, their cases have not been considered for being appointed

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate, however, relied upon a common judgment dated 6.5.1997 of a Division Bench of this Court passed in O.J.C. No.1259 of 1995 and a batch of writ petitions in support of his contention that the question raised in the present writ petitions was directly in issue in the cases which were decided by the aforementioned common judgment dated 6.5.1997. He further submitted that in the said decision/judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held that the action of the Government in issuing the letter directing not to take cognizance of the certificate of Sikshya Visarad issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad cannot be interfered with. He, therefore, submitted that since by the said common judgment dated 6.5.1997, the action of the Government deciding not to recognizance the Sikshya Visarad certificate as equivalent to C.T. has been ratified, there is nothing left to be decided in the present cases and no fault can be found for not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of as they do not possess the required qualification.