Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 646 (ORI)

Sanatan Nahak v. State of Odisha

2014-09-26

BISWANATH RATH

body2014
JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J.: Even though the matter was listed under the heading “For Orders” but, on the request of learned counsels for the parties this matter was taken up for final disposal. Order sheet shows even though notice on all the opposite parties is duly served but, the opposite party no.5 chose not to contest the case. The matter is finally disposed of after hearing the appearing contesting parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 01.12.2012 vide Annexure-5 passed by opposite party no.3 appointing opposite party no.5 as a Switch Board Attendant in the opposite party no.2-company on clear manipulation/interpolation of the recruitment records. The petitioner alleges that even though his case was considered for the purpose of selection and he was found most suitable but by manipulation/interpolation made raising the marks in respect of opposite party no.5 and reducing the marks in respect of the petitioner as clearly appearing from the assessment sheet at page-22 vide Annexure-4 to the brief, the opposite party no.5 has been shown a favour. The petitioner further alleges that due to interpolation, in the personality test category, the position of the opposite party no.5 is deliberately raised above the petitioner placing him at Sl. No.1 of the said list. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 filed the only counter and submits that the selection is made for the seasonal purpose, the appointment lost force on expiry of the said season in 2012-13 and there is no cause of action in pursuing the present writ petition. 4. Perusal of the advertisement as appearing at Sl. No.7 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition, no where discloses that the appointment is for periodic purpose. Similarly, the appointment order vide Annexure-5 at page-23 to the brief also no where discloses that the engagement of the opposite party no.5 in the opposite party no.2 company was for periodic purpose on the other hand it is a permanent one. 5. On perusal of the document at page-22 of the brief the allegation of the petitioner becomes apparent, opposite party no.2 even though has filed a counter, in Para-6 therein even though admitted that there has been increase and decrease in the marks as against opposite party no.5 and the petitioner but, it is averred that the same has been done by the previous selection committee. I am not inclined to accept the explanation given by the opposite party no.2 as the document vide Annexure-4 at page-22 to the brief establishes that there has been increase in the category of personality test from 1 to 7 in respect of the opposite party no.5 making his total marks from 11.1 to 17.1. Similarly, the said sheet also discloses at item no.6 in respect of the petitioner that even though he has scored 7 in the personality test, the same has been reduced to 4 thereby reducing his total scoring from 18.4 to 15.4. The corrections are apparent and I do not find any reasonable cause for entering into such corrections in the list appended at Page-22 of the brief. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons as indicated above, I set aside the appointment of opposite party no.5 vide Annexure-5 and make it open to the opposite party no.2-company to enter into the fresh selection. 7. The writ petition succeeds. However, there shall be no order as to costs.