Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 879 (ORI)

BIBEKANANDA MISHRA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2007-11-20

N.PRUSTY

body2007
ORDER N. Prusty, J. - This application has been filed by the intervener Petitioner i.e. newly added Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 9 for vacation of the interim Order Dated 30.10.2007 whereby this Court has directed "status quo with regard to selection of Swechhasevi Sikhya sahayak in the district concerned shall be maintained till the next date." 2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, Learned senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. H.P. Rath, Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department/Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Samir Kumar Das, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Parties 5 to 9. 3. Opposing the above application, Mr. Rath, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the vide order/Judgment dated 23.7.2007, this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 14981 of 2006, W.P.(C) No. 14.133 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 1855 of 2007 at paragraph 17 observed as follows: From discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that Clause 4.1 of the advertisement dated 14.10.2006 under Annexure-6 for appointment of Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak as amended by the corrigendum dated 12.10.2006 is violative of the provisions of Article 16(2) of the Constitution and the same is set aside. This Court, however, declares that any person who satisfies the criteria of educational qualification and other eligibility condition shall be entitled to apply for appointment to the post of Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak despite the fact that he or she does not stay within any block where such appointment will be made. In other words, there can be no disqualification on the ground of residence. 4. In Clause-4(1)of the advertisement dated 14.10.2006 it has been mentioned that for selection of block unit-wise Sikhya Sahayak, a Committee will function under the Collector-cum-Chief Executive, Zilla Parishad. In the said Committee, the Circle Inspector of School, District Inspector of School, District Welfare Officer, Employment Officer of the district, Project Coordinator of Sarba Sikhya Abhijan shall remain as members and Project Coordinator of the district shall be the convener. 5. As it appears from the Judgment of this Court dated 23.8.2007 as stated above, Clause 4(1) of the advertisement dated. 14.10.2006 has been quashed. 5. As it appears from the Judgment of this Court dated 23.8.2007 as stated above, Clause 4(1) of the advertisement dated. 14.10.2006 has been quashed. It has been specifically declared that any person who satisfies the criteria of educational qualification and other eligibility condition, shall be entitled to apply for appointment to the post of Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak despite the fact that he or she does not stay within the block where such appointment will be made. As such, there can be no disqualification on the ground of residence. This Court in clear and categorically term has observed hat no discrimination can be made in between the candidates on the basis of their residence. Anybody, who may be staying at any part of the State, can apply for his engagement as Sikhya Sahayak irrespective of his place of residence in any Education/ Revenue district or block, whatsoever unit for selection is prescribed by the appropriate Government. In the above said Judgment this Court had never observed anything as to whether the selection shall be made by inviting application declaring Block or Education/ Revenue District as an unit for submission of application/selection. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that no prejudice shall be caused to either side, if the selection process which has been started pursuant to advertisement dated 14.10.2006 shall continue, selection be made, but appointment if any, shall also be made subject to the result of the Writ Petition. 6. At this stage, Mr. Rath, Learned senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that by Order Dated 23.8.2007 this Court has also directed that no selection has to be made on the basis of Block-wise unit, which can only be on the basis of district-wise unit. 7. Mr. Samir Kumar Das, Learned Counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos. 5 to 9 submits that in the meantime the state Government has already passed another resolution dated 14.11.2007 in suppersession of all the earlier resolution fixing the unit as Block unit for submission of application and selection and this resolution having not been challenged by anybody in this Writ Petition, the same is still in force and effect. 8. 5 to 9 submits that in the meantime the state Government has already passed another resolution dated 14.11.2007 in suppersession of all the earlier resolution fixing the unit as Block unit for submission of application and selection and this resolution having not been challenged by anybody in this Writ Petition, the same is still in force and effect. 8. Be that as it may, considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and keeping in view of the fact that in the above said Judgment no observation has been made by Division Bench of this Court as to whether there shall be a selection keeping the Education District as an unit of Block as an unit, there shall be no impediment for anybody if the selection process shall continue. But the concerned candidates for selection as Sikhya Sahayak shall be at liberty to apply for their engagement in respect of one Block of Education/ Revenue District only irrespective of their place of residences, as the case may be. 9. In view of the above, the State Government is at liberty to proceed with selection process and issue engagement order to the selected candidates specifically mentioning therein that the appointment shall abide by the result of the Writ Petition. However, if any further clarification is required by the Petitioner with regard to the Judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 14981 of 2006 and other analogues matter to the said case, if so advised, he is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for such clarification, in accordance with law. 10. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of with the above observation and modification of Order Dated 30.10.2007 passed in Misc Case No. 12256 of 2007. A free copy of this order may be handed over to Mr. H.P. Rath, Learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted to private parties on proper application.