MANEETA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.11.2002 (Annexure-3) passed by the President of the Governing Body of Mahamayee Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Gandhi Nagar, Berhampur Decided on 26th July, 2016. in the District of Ganjam by which the claim of the petitioner for engage as Lecturer in Zoology in the said college, which is purely on temporary basis has been rejected.

(2.) The fact of the petitioner in nutshell is that in pursuance to the advertisement published by the college on 26.7.1999, applications were invited for filing up of the posts of Lecturers in different subject including Zoology. In the said advertisement, stipulation was made that the application was to be submitted latest by 31.7.1999 and further preference was to be given to the candidates having experience/Net/Ph.D/M.PM qualifications. In the light of the advertisement dated 26.7.1999, the petitioner submitted her application for consideration of her candidature for engagement as Lecturer in Zoology in the said college. The petitioner along with others participated in the selection process, but she was not selected. According to the petitioner, she ought to have been given the benefit of 5 extra marks on account of having M.Phil qualification, but the selection committee has not considered this aspect of the matter and selected another candidate, namely, Miss. Y. Yosovanti. The grievance of the petitioner is that although she did not possess M. Phil degree as on the last date of submission application i.e. 31.7.1999, but however, providing 5 additional marks on account of having M.Phil degree ought to have been taken into consideration in the light of the decision dated 27.6.1990 (Annexure-11) reiterated the communication dated 15.3.2001 (Annexure-10), but the authorities have not considered the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of the said decision. The petitioner having not been considered by the selection committee, has approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 730 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 6.8.2002 directed the competent authority to take decision with respect to the grievance of the petitioner and accordingly, order has been passed by the authority rejecting her claim vide order dated 30.11.2002. Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that she is entitled to be given 5 additional marks on account of having M.Phil qualification. It has been submitted by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that if she has got M.Phil degree after lapse of the period of 90 days, she is entitled to get 5 extra marks, but the authorities have not considered this aspect of the matter and rejected her claim.

(3.) The opposite parties after being noticed have appeared. Opposite party no. 3 has contested the case by filing detailed counter affidavit stating therein that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the authority for the reason that the advertisement contains a condition that the candidate was required to submit the application by 31.7.1999 and preference was to be given to the candidates having experience/Net/Ph.D/M.Phil qualification. The settled principle for consideration of eligibility of one or the other candidate is that the candidate is required to fulfil the eligibility condition on the last date of submission of application, but admittedly, the petitioner has not acquired M.Phil degree as on the date of application. It has been submitted that some relaxation has been made by the functionaries of the State regarding consideration of due weightage for awarding career marks to the candidates in possession of M.Phil degree in between the last date of application and the date of interview, i.e. 90 days, but even on the basis of that relaxation, since the petitioner has submitted her M.Phil certificate after lapse of 90 days, on that ground the petitioner is not entitled to be given 5 additional marks for consideration of her candidature. The authorities after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter have passed the order. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and accordingly, this Court should not interfere with the writ petition.