JAGDISH KUMAR TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant -Sri Jagdish Kumar Tripathy in this appeal has sought to challenge the Judgment and Order Dated 10.1.2008 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 15742 of 2006, whereby, the writ application filed by the present Respondent No. 6 came to be allowed with the direction to consider the candidature of Respondent No. S for appointment as Multi Purpose Assistant (Gram Rojagar Sevak) in Baharpur Gram Panchayat under Dharakot Block.

(2.) MR . Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that an advertisement was published by the Collector, Ganjam calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment as Multi Purpose Assistant (Gram Rojagar Sevak) and it was stipulated therein that a candidate must have passed the 10+2 examination and preference would be given to Commerce stream having computer proficiency of 'O' Level with use of Oriya language in computer. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that pursuant to the said advertisement, an interview was hold for assessment of all the applications. The Appellant came to be selected in the said post under Annexure -2 dated 15.12.2006. The application of the Respondent No. 6 came to be rejected by the State Government on the ground that Respondent No. 6 did not possess the requisite qualification as stipulated in the advertisement.

(3.) IT appears that a counter affidavit was filed to the writ application by the State and in the said counter affidavit, the stand of the Collector was that although the Petitioner has passed 'Upashastri', the advertisement had invited applications only from intending candidates having 10+2 qualification and the said advertisement did not contemplate/permit consideration of equivalent qualification. The Collector took the stand that the Petitioner's contention that he had passed +2 examination from Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya could not be accepted since, the said Institution does not offer any such examination and further, since the advertisement and terms contained therein, did not make it possible to entertain applications of the candidates having equivalent qualification. Therefore, the application of the Petitioner had been rejected due to want of requisite qualification. Apart from the above, in the writ application, the present Appellant who is Opposite Party No. 5 in the writ application had raised a contention that the Upashastri examination conducted by Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, was not equivalent to +2 examination of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa. In so far as the notification issued by the Council of Higher Secondary Education Orissa dated 18th February, 1986 is concerned (Annexure -9 to the writ application and Annexure -4 to the present appeal), the Opposite Party No. 5 in the writ application (present Appellant) submitted that even though the Equivalence Committee of the said Council had recognized the Upashastri examination of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya as equivalent to +2 Humanity Stream of Higher Secondary Education, this recommendation 'was subject to the approval of the Council' and it was further submitted that no such approval had been taken by the Council even till date. In essence, Sri. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since the Council has not yet approved the decision of the Equivalence Committee referred to in Annexure -4, the said order is non est in the eye of law and until and unless the approval is accorded, no reliance could be placed upon the aforesaid notification. Sri Mohapatra further submitted that the Appellant having been duly selected for appointment as Multi Purpose Assistant, the finding of the Learned Single Judge that no right to the post had accrued in favour of the Appellant is wholly erroneous, inasmuch, as even though the interim order has been passed on 12.12.2006 permitting the selection for the post in question to continue no appointment thereto shall be made without leave of this Court. Learned Counsel submitted that since the process of selection was permitted to be proceeded with under Annexure -2, as the culmination of such process, the Petitioner (Respondent No. 6) had been issued the letter of selection, he had a legitimate expectation for being offered an appointment, pursuant to the process of selection and, therefore, the Learned Single Judge erred in law by coming to hold that 'no right to the post had accrued in favour of the Appellant'.