TARJAN PATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition seeking a direction as against opposite party no.3 not to consider the candidature of opposite party no.4 for his lacking essential qualification following the advertisement under Annexure-1.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner is a 10+2 qualification holder. Petitioner claimed to be eligible for the post of Multi-purpose Assistant, otherwise known as "Grama Rozgar Sevak". Pursuant to issuing an advertisement dated 07.11.2015 calling for application from intending candidates for the post of Grama Rozgar Sevak vide Annexure-1, petitioner applied for the post along with private opposite party no.4. Facts further reveal that on consideration of the testimonials submitted by different candidates, the Authority published provisional merit list for the post of Grama Rozgar Sevak in Kalipal Gram Panchayat wherein name of the petitioner appeared at sl.no.2 whereas name of opposite party no.4 appeared at sl.no.1 contending that. Positioning the opposite party no.4 at sl.no.1 taking into consideration his Diploma qualification becomes bad for being contrary to the qualification clause contained in the advertisement. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that for the conditions contained at Clause (c) , (d) and (j) the position of the respective parties so far it relates to Class-X and +2 pass becomes material.

(3.) For the conditions contained in the advertisement, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that for the advertisement clearly indicating the qualification for consideration becomes 10+2 pass, a Diploma holder could not have been considered for the post involved. Taking this Court to the Government circular treating the Diploma qualification with +2 pass, Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there being no indication of consideration of case of the Diploma holder in the advertisement, consideration of the candidature of opposite party no.4 since not a 10+2 pass holder becomes illegal. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further taking this Court to two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vrs. Saifudaullah Khan and others, (2011) 12 SCC 85 and in the case of Prakash Chand Meena and others vrs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2015) 8 SCC 484, contended that for the support of the decisions to the case of the petitioner, consideration of the candidature of opposite party no.4 and his positioning above the petitioner should be declared bad in law.