PRADEEP KUMAR KAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this Writ Petition is with regard to the alleged illegalities and irregularities said to have been committed in course of selection of Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayaks in Nuapada district so far as B.Ed candidates were concerned.

(2.) THE petitioner in response to an advertisement, it is submitted, had applied for being engaged as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak in Nuapada district. He was more meritorious than all other candidates and after facing rigorous recruitment tests was selected. A draft selection list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner had been reflected but for reasons best known to the selection committee he was not engaged. Being aggrieved by that he had preferred WPC No.393 of 2005 challenging the illegal action of the opposite party -authorities. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 31.1.2005 with observation that if the petitioner would file a representation before the Collector, Nuapada who was the Chairman of the selection committee, he would call for the records, scrutinize the same, conduct an enquiry and pass consequential orders. In compliance with that, the Collector conducted an enquiry and disposed of the representation of the petitioner by order dated 2.5.2005, Annexure -4. The Collector found that the name of the petitioner had been reflected in the provisional merit list but then objections were received as to eligibility of the petitioner to be so selected on the ground that he had not filed his 'residence certificate issued by the competent revenue authority under rule 3(ii) of the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules. Consequently, the name of the petitioner was struck off. The Collector held that as the residence certificate had not been filed by the petitioner, the selection committee had not committed any illegality.

(3.) DRAWING attention of this Court to the advertisement in question, Annexure -3, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per clause 11, a candidate was required to enclose to his application a residential certificate along with other documents. The advertisement did not state that the residential certificate should be one issued under the Orissa Miscellaneous Certificate Rules. It is stated that the petitioner had in fact enclosed a residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nuapada in Misc. Case No.1652 of 2000 in form No.2, vide Annexure -5. The said certificate clearly revealed that the petitioner was residing in the village in question. He had also enclosed his voters identity card, Annexure -6, which revealed that he was residing in village Kareikela. Other materials are also there to reveal that the petitioner was in fact residing in the village in question.