MADHU SUDAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure -3 dated 28.9.2006 in the daily English Newspaper, he offered his candidature for the post of Multi purpose Assistance (Gram Rojgar Sevak) in respect of Solabandh Gram Panchayat under Patnagarh Block. As per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for the said post was 10+2 passed. It was further stated therein that the applicants of Commerce stream and applicants with computer proficiency of 'O' level with use of Oriya language in computer would be preferred. The petitioner has passed +2 Arts in C.H.S.E. Examination in the year 2002 having secured 46.89 marks. He completed 12 months' course in Diploma in Computer Application. But instead of selecting him one Bidyadhar Majhi, who was ineligible for the post, was selected.

(2.) BEING aggrieved with the said selection, petitioner made a representation to the Project Director D.R.D.A., Bolangir (Opposite party No. 3), but it was not attended. So, he filed W.P.(C) No. 16809 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 27.1.2007 with direction to finalize the representation within one month from the date of receipt of that order. Instead of considering the case of petitioner, opposite party No. 3 gave appointment to Sarat Kumar Das (opposite party No. 5), under Annexure -1 though he had no requisite qualification for the post. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to quash Annexure -1 and to direct the opp. parties to recommend his name for the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak in respect of Solabandh Grama panchayat.

(3.) AS against this, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the advertisement, the minimum qualification for the post was 10+2. There was nothing to show that candidate having equivalent qualification of 10+2 would be also eligible to the post of Gram Rojagar Sevak. He further submitted that as per the advertisement the last date of submission of application was 28.10.2006. At that time the Equivalence Committee had not declared Upasastri as equivalent to 10+2 pass. Annexure D/5, shows that opposite party No. 5 passed Upasastri in the month of August 2001 from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya. But, there is nothing to indicate that the Equivalence Committee declared Upasastri equivalent to 10+2 pass prior to 28.10.2006.. So, Opposite party No. 5 cannot be said to have passed 10+2 or any equivalent examination thereof till 28.10.2006, and, as such, he was not eligible for the post at all.