ANANDINI HATI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An advertisement was published on 15/4/2023 by the Secretary of Swayangprabha Block Level Federation, Kantamal inviting applications for selection of Community Resource Person- Community Mobilizer (CRP-CM) for different Gram Panchayats under Kantamal Panchayat Samiti including Jalapali Gram Panchayt. The petitioner and opposite party No.6 applied for the said Gram Panchayat. The petitioner claims to have submitted all required documents along with her application. A mark list was prepared by the selection committee on 22/5/2023, wherein the petitioner was treated to have secured 10 marks, whereas the opposite party No.6, 7 marks. The petitioner therefore, remained under the bonafide impression that she would be engaged in the post but when she did not receive any intimation to this end, she enquired and found that opposite party No.6 had been appointed. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Collector, Boudh and the BDO, Kantamal on 9/1/2024. Her representation was considered and disposed of vide letter dtd. 6/3/2024 by the BDO intimating that both she and the opposite party No.6 had secured the same marks but the latter being senior in age, was selected. According to the petitioner, the selection committee illegally selected opposite party No.6 by changing the mark sheet only to accommodate opposite party No.6 even though she is less meritorious than her. Basically, on such facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ application seeking the following relief:

(2.) The stand of the State (opposite party No.4) is that on preliminary scrutiny of the applications, opposite party No.6 not being treated as a beneficiary of Ration Card was not awarded weightage of 3 marks. Subsequently, on her objection, the matter was reconsidered, whereby her husband was recognised as the beneficiary of Ration Card and 3 more marks were added. The mark sheet prepared on 22/5/2023 was thus, rectified. Since the petitioner and opposite party No. 6 were found to have secured the same marks, the latter being senior in age was decided to be selected by the committee. Opposite party No.6 was awarded 3 marks as she is a Ration Card holder.

(3.) The petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the opposite party No. 6 never submitted Ration Card with her application and therefore, award of 3 extra marks is entirely illegal. Even otherwise, she herself not being a Ration Card holder cannot be given weightage.