SUDHIR KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC), hails from Bolangir District and has passed +2 Vocational Examination in Agriculture Trade from Titilagarh. According to him, there were limited job vacancies in the field of Agriculture. While the petitioner was unemployed, an advertisement was made in an Oriya daily "The Sambad" on 18.5.2008 for filling up the posts of Village Agricultural Worker (VAW) and Lady Village Agricultural Worker (LVAW) on contractual basis, vide Annexure -2. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the said advertisement in Annexure -2, so far as it relates to Bolangir District, being de hors the rules, i.e., Recruitment and Training of V.A.W. Rules, 1981, which under Clause 4 of Rule 6 under the heading "Educational Qualification" provides that for the post of VAW, a candidate should have passed the +2 Vocational Course in the field of Agriculture orientated subject or +2 Science or Intermediate in Science. The proviso to the said rule stipulates that the candidates, who have passed +2 Vocational Course in the field of Agriculture, shall be given preference while selecting the candidates for appointment in the post of VAW and LVAW. According to the petitioner, the advertisement does not contain that in the process of selection, preference would be given to the candidates completing +2 Vocational Course in the field of Agriculture. Therefore, according to him, the same is violative of Clause 4 of Rule 6 of the Rules, thereby the advertisement dated 18.5.2008 and the subsequent corrigendum dated 12.6.2008 (Annexure -3), whereby it had increased from 22 posts to 42 posts in Bolangir District, with regard to the appointment to the posts of VAW are also sought to be quashed as the same are violative of the Rules framed by the State Government.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he completed the Vocational Training in the year 2001 but due to ban of recruitment of VAWS by the State government, there was no avenue of appointment. The decision of the Government in 2008 was the only ray of hope for him and others similarly placed, but as the said advertisement does not state as to giving any preference to the candidates having Vocational Training in Agriculture Trade, he is prejudiced thereby. Thus the petitioner had no alternative but to seek redress before this Court. The petitioner further submits that vide notification dated 28.8.1998 the Honble Governor of Orissa made certain amendments to the Recruitment and Training of V.A.W. Rules, 1981, which reads as follows :

(3.) CONSIDERING the allegations of the petitioner, we had directed the State Counsel to obtain instruction regarding the reason for not giving preference to the candidates, who have passed +2 Vocation examination in the field of Agriculture as per the recruitment and training of V.A.W. Rules, 1981 as amended on 28th August, 1998. A counter affidavit has been filed by the O.Ps. While going through the same, particularly, paragraph -3, to our utter surprise, we find that a stand has been taken by the deponent, who is a Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration), Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, which reads as follows :