Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 92 (ORI)

Jharana Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2005-01-31

A.S.NAIDU

body2005
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The dispute in the present case relates to engagement of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks in Koraput Educa¬tion District. In response to an advertisement issued by the State Government dated 26.3.2003 vide Annexure-1 the petitioner along with many others applied for being engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayaks. The petitioner asserts that she is possessing requisite qualification and she is otherwise eligible for being engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak. According to her she has married to Sri Bijaya Kumar Sahoo in the year 1999 and is resid¬ing at Chatwa in the Education District of Koraput with her husband. In support of her stand she had submitted a Resident Certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Machkund in Miscellaneous Certificate Case No.24/2003 vide Annexure-6. The said Resident Certificate clearly showed that the petitioner ordinarily resided in village Chatwa in the District of Koraput. It is further as¬serted that the petitioner in response to a call letter appeared before the Selection Committee, faced the rigorous recruitment test and was provisionally selected. Her name found place at Sl. No.18 of the select list. While matter stood thus, the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Magistrate, Zilla Parishad, Koraput on 19.6.2003 vide Annexure-9 directed the Selection Committee to scrutinize the provisional list once again and not to consider the case of those who were not residing in the Koraput Education District for more than twelve years and to prepare a final merit list accordingly. Being aggrieved by such intimation dated 19.6.2003, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. According to the instruction issued by the Collector as per Annexure-9, before finalizing the provisional select list, the Committee had to examine as to whether a candidate was permanent¬ly residing along with his/her parents or independently in the concerned education district for more than twelve years. But then the advertisement issued stipulated that a candidate would be eligible for engagement if he/she was a resident of the concerned education district and had registered the name in the Employment Exchange. In support of such assertion, a candidate was required to submit a resident certificate issued by the competent authori¬ty under the Rules framed by the State. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, selection was to be made in conso¬nance with the stipulations in the advertisement calling for applications. The eligibility criteria could not be changed, modified or imposed in the mid-way of selection process. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, selection was to be made in conso¬nance with the stipulations in the advertisement calling for applications. The eligibility criteria could not be changed, modified or imposed in the mid-way of selection process. Accord¬ing to the learned counsel, issuance of the instructions vide Annexure-9 was contrary to the advertisement Annexure-1 and, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the Selection Committee should be directed to consider the candidature of the applicants on the basis of the resident cer¬tificates issued by the concerned authorities, and strictly adhering to the stipulations made in the Notification/Advertise¬ment, Annexure-1 inviting applications, and the instructions issued, vide Annexure-9, should be struck down. 3. After receiving notice, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.2, inter alia, taking the stand that unless a candidate permanently resides in an Education District for more than twelve years he/she cannot be treated to be a permanent resident and consequently eligible for being engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak. According to the opposite parties the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Koraput Education District and as such she is not eligible to be engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak. 4. I have perused the materials available meticulously and considered the submissions diligently. The advertisement dated 26.3.2003, Annexure-1 issued inviting applications for selection of Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak clearly stipulated that a candidate should have possessed C.T. Training; should have registered his/her name in any of the employment exchanges of the District; and should have been a resident of the concerned Education District. The candidates were required to submit Resident Certificate issued by the authorized officer. It appears that the petitioner in support of her stand that she was residing in the Education District, strictly inconsonance with the terms embodied had submitted the Resident certificate, Annexure-6, issued by the Tahasildar, Machkund who was the competent authority, indicating that she was residing in Village Chatwa in the District of Koraput. Such certificate of the petitioner was in consonance with the stipula¬tions made in the advertisement. Perusal of the advertisement clearly reveals that there was no stipulation with regard to permanent residency in the District for more than twelve years as had been insisted upon vide Annexure-9. 5. Mr. Sarangi, learned Sr. Such certificate of the petitioner was in consonance with the stipula¬tions made in the advertisement. Perusal of the advertisement clearly reveals that there was no stipulation with regard to permanent residency in the District for more than twelve years as had been insisted upon vide Annexure-9. 5. Mr. Sarangi, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submits that in consonance with the notification issued by the State Government unless a person has resided for more than twelve years in a particular Education District he/she would not be eligible for being consid¬ered for engagement as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak in that Educa¬tion District. This submission, it is pertinent to note, is con¬trary to the stipulations made in the advertisement inviting applications. The advertisement stipulated that a candidate should enclose a Resident certificate issued by the Competent Authority that he/she is a resident of the concerned Education District. It did not breathe a word with regard twelve years of residency in the Education District. 6. It appears from the provisions of the Scheme that a lady who is married and is staying with her husband is eligible to be engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak in the centres situ¬ated in her in-law’s village. If the interpretation by the State Counsel is accepted, then a lady married in a particular District is precluded from applying for being engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak in that District for a period of twelve years and she would be eligible to apply for being engaged only after permanently residing in the said District for more than twelve years. Such interpretation is not only absurd but also contrary to the Scheme. Further such interpretation would make the Scheme unworkable and also frustrates the purpose for which the Scheme was introduced and therefore cannot be accepted. The interpreta¬tion creates an embargo for married ladies staying with their husbands as a class from being engaged as Swechhasevi Sikhya Sahayak at least for a period of twelve years inasmuch as by efflux of time they may become age-barred. Considering the facts and submissions in the light of the discussions made, I have no hesitation to hold that the instructions issued vide letter dated 16.9.2003 (Annexure-9) cannot be sustained. 7. Considering the facts and submissions in the light of the discussions made, I have no hesitation to hold that the instructions issued vide letter dated 16.9.2003 (Annexure-9) cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the discussions made above and the conclu¬sions arrived at, I direct the Collector, opposite party No.2, to consider the case of the petitioner bereft of the stipulations made in the letter Annexure-9 so far as twelve years' permanent residency is concerned. It is submitted that in the meanwhile some other candidate has already been engaged as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak in the centre in question. I, therefore, further direct that after verification if the Collector is satisfied that the petitioner was more meritorious and more suitable than the candidate who has already been engaged as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak, the Collector shall hear the person already engaged after issuing notice to her shall pass necessary orders. In the alternative the Collector shall not disturb the engagement al¬ready made. This exercise shall be completed within six months. With aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.