Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 379 (ORI)

Sasmita Manjari Das v. State of Orissa

2015-06-25

S.N.PRASAD

body2015
Order Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 2.5.2011 in Anganwadi Appeal Case No.50 of 2010 by which the Additional District Magistrate Jagatsinghpur has passed order to consider candidate of the private opposite party no.5 for its verification on the ground that on the date of verification she was absence has approached this Court. Facts of the case of the petitioner that an advertisement has been issued on 17.5.2010 inviting applications for filling up of the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Khntal Anganwadi Centre. Against the said vacancy the petitioner has applied along with the private opposite party no.5 and proforma opposite party no.6 and participated but the proforma opposite party no.6 has withdrawn herself on account of her engagement elsewhere. The petitioner stood 3rd and the opposite party no.5 stood 2nd in the merit list. In the advertisement the date of verification of certificates and testimonial was fixed to 10.6.2010. The private opposite party no.5 had not appeared on 10.6.2010 for verification of certificates and testimonials and since the petitioner has appeared on10.6.2010 for verification of certificates and testimonials the petitioner has been declared successful candidate but in the meanwhile the private opposite party no.5 has approached the A.D.M. for consideration of her candidature which has not been considered on the ground of non-verification of certificates and testimonials due to her absence on 10.6.2010 the A.D.M. has passed an order directing to prepare merit list in accordance with the law after considering candidature of the private opposite party no.5. Being aggrieved with the said order the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that when there is clear stipulation in the advertisement that after participating in the assessment respective candidates will have to appear on 10.6.2010 for verification of certificates and testimonials which has been mentioned in the advertisement private opposite party no.5 since not appeared she cannot be given any privilege by considering her candidature after 10.6.2010 on the ground that condition mentioned in the advertisement cannot be deviated by the authorities and is to be strictly followed. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the A.D.M. has passed a justified order on the ground that since merit list was not prepared the A.D.M. has directed the C.D.P.O. to prepare merit list after considering candidate of the private opposite party no.5. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the A.D.M. has passed a justified order on the ground that since merit list was not prepared the A.D.M. has directed the C.D.P.O. to prepare merit list after considering candidate of the private opposite party no.5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The fact which is not in dispute in this case that in the selection process candidates have participated out which the proforma opposite party no.6 has withdrawn from the selection process since she was engaged elsewhere. Son only the contestant in the selection process was the petitioner and the private opposite party no.5. Admittedly the private opposite party has secured second in the merit list and the petitioner was in the third position. From perusal of the advertisement there is a condition that after receiving application forms verification of all original certificates and testimonials are to be done on 10.6.2010 in presence of the applicants and name of the eligible candidate will be enlisted and published in the notice board of Block Development Office notice Board of concerned Grama Panchayat and also publish in village level. If any objection pertains to the resident educational qualification caste or other certificate regarding the selected candidate be submitted before the C.D.P.O. after 7 days of publication of selection list i.e. 22.6.2010. The selection committee shall enquire and investigate the objections within 7 days (except holiday) i.e. 29.6.2010 of receiving the same. If no objection is received by the office within 7days as stated above then it would be presumed that the select list is just and proper. Since on the date of verification of original certificates and testimonials was to be done on 10.6.2010 and on that date the private opposite party no.5 has not chosen to remain present before the authorities for verification of certificates and testimonials and as such the sole candidate who is the petitioner has been declared to be successful candidate and according to the condition stipulated in the advertisement name of the selected candidate has been published subject to objections to be invited. The content of the advertisement wherein the date of verification of certificates and testimonials has been fixed to10.6.2010 for scrutiny of certificates and inviting objections the private opposite party no.5 had not chosen to appear and when her name has not been published in the select list he approached to the A.D.M. and the A.D.M. has passed an order for consideration of her candidature and to prepare fresh merit list on the ground that one applicant has been permitted to withdraw her candidature which has been accepted by the selection committee reason in the order passed by the A.D.M. does not seems to be proper and justified because withdrawal of candidature is something otherwise since from withdrawal of case other candidate will not be prejudiced but due to consideration at belated stage right of successful candidate will be prejudiced. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the A.D.M. and the ground has been taken for preparation of fresh merit list which is not proper and justified. Law is well settled that if any condition stipulated in the advertisement it is strictly to be followed by the authority and in no case it will be deviated which has been decided in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India reported in (1979)3 SCC 489 wherein at paragraph-10 it has been held: It is well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. The Supreme Court also in the case of B.Ramakichenin Alias Balagandhi v. Union of India and others reported in (2008)1 SCC 362 has reiterated the same view after taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v- International Airport Authority of India. The Supreme Court also in the case of B.Ramakichenin Alias Balagandhi v. Union of India and others reported in (2008)1 SCC 362 has reiterated the same view after taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v- International Airport Authority of India. The selection committee on the basis of the settled proposition of law that the condition mentioned in the advertisement notice is strictly to be followed has not entertained candidature of the private opposite party on the ground that she had not chosen to appear on 10.6.2010 the date which was fixed in the advertisement for verification of certificates and testimonials but very surprisingly the A.D.M. without considering the settled proposition of law has passed the order. Hence the order passed by the A.D.M. is not sustainable in the eye of law. As such the same is hereby set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. Issue urgent certified copy.