BIJAYEENI RATH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein a direction has been sought to quash the order dated 5.8.2016 passed by the opposite party no.2-Collector, Khurda under Annexure-6 with a further direction to allow the petitioner to continue in her present post in which she has engaged.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was continuing as Warden on temporary basis by the order of the Managing Committee of the Unit-6 Primary School, Bhubaneswar, one advertisement was issued by the opposite parties in the month of September, 2014 for inviting applications to engage Warden on contractual basis in the residential hostels at Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, she was selected and joined in the post on 1.7.2014 and has discharging her duty. But while continuing as such, the opposite parties have issued another advertisement for contractual engagement of Warden in the residential hostels at Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to the said advertisement dated 1.9.2014, she has applied for the said post annexing all the required documents. Thereafter, the opposite parties have published the final list, but the name of the petitioner does not find mentioned therein. She objected the final list and made a representation before the Collector, Khurda, but no decision has been taken. She having no option, has filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No.25688 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.5.2016 with a direction to the Collector, Khurda to verify from the record as to whether the petitioner in fact selected as Warden and in the event the petitioner is selected to the post of Warden, then necessary order be passed in her favour. The Collector when not passed an order, she has filed a contempt case before this Court being CONTC No.1236 of 2016 and it is only thereafter the Collector has passed an order on 5.8.2016 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Against it, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order on the ground that the Collector has not taken into consideration the fact that she happens to be a woman candidate and one post under the woman category has been reserved and as such, she ought to have been selected under the woman category.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State-opposite parties as well as the intervener have jointly submit that the petitioner has no case on merit in view of the fact that she has made an application in terms of an advertisement published on 1.9.2014 in which she has submitted incomplete application without any Employment Registration Card and as such, her name has not been included in the merit list, but subsequently she has approached to this Court and this Court has passed an order directing the Collector, Khurda to look into the matter as to whether she has been selected as a Warden and in the event she has been selected, necessary order be passed in her favour, but the Collector in terms of the said order has passed the order and accepting her application form has come to the conclusion that her name is at Serial No.19 of the merit list, but upto Serial No.14 the selection has been made and as such, she cannot be selected, since in the meanwhile the validity period of appointment has lost its life i.e. after completion of one year.