Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 334 (ORI)

Truptimayee Mishra v. State of Odisha

2017-03-28

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT S.N. PRASAD, J. - This appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent Appeal read with Chapter-III, Rule 6 and Rule 2 of Chapter-VII of Orissa High Court Rules read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 assailing the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 24514 of 2014, whereby and whereudner the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 19.9.2016. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner-appellant is that in pursuance to the recruitment process of the year 2010-11 for the post of Sikhya Sahayak, she applied with all documents under Dhenkanal Revenue District in respect of Hindol Education District against Trained Graduate Teacher (Science) post, wherein she was placed at Sl. No. 3 in the merit list as waiting candidate under 101 % to 150%. The grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that in spite of the fact that vacancy was there, but she has not been selected, which compelled her to approach this Court under the writ jurisdiction by filing W.P.(C) No. 24514 of 2014, which was disposed of on 19.09.2016, but the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the life of the panel since is valid for a period of one year, as such, no appointment could be given from the panel prepared for the select year 2010-11. The petitioner-appellant contends that she being at Sl. No. 3 under the un-reserved category in the merit list, but ignoring her case, one Subhalaxmi Sahoo had been appointed, however, the learned Single Judge without appreciating this aspect of the matter, has declined to interfere with the writ petition merely on the ground that the life of the panel has lost it force after completion of one year from the date of preparation of the merit list. Hence, the instant appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State-opposite party has submitted that the petitioner-appellant has got no case reason being that she was considered for selection for the select year 2010-11 under the unreserved category in which she was found at Sl.No. 3. Since the candidates, who were above her, i.e. at Sl. Nos. Hence, the instant appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State-opposite party has submitted that the petitioner-appellant has got no case reason being that she was considered for selection for the select year 2010-11 under the unreserved category in which she was found at Sl.No. 3. Since the candidates, who were above her, i.e. at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2, having secured higher marks than that of her, have been engaged and as such, there is no question of any illegality having been committed by the authority in not engaging her as Sikhya Sahayak for the said selection year. So far as the contention of the petitioner-appellant that Subhalaxmi Sahoo belongs to SEBC category, the petitioner cannot make out her case on the basis of the appointment of Subhalaxmi Sahoo reason being that she was not under the unreserved category rather under SEBC category. He further submits that the select list of the year 2010-11 has already lost its force after expiry of one year from the date of preparation of the merit list. It is settled that the validity of the panel cannot be said to be in force after lapse of one year from the date of preparation of the merit list. Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has declined to interfere with the writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. We on appreciation of the facts and after going through the relevant records, have found that the petitioner-appellant being an applicant (unreserved) for the select year 2010-11 for her engagement as Sikhya Sahayak had appeared for consideration of her candidature, her candidature was considered under the unreserved category and was placed at Sl. No. 3. It is evident from the merit list that the candidates, who have secured higher marks, have been placed at Sl. No. 1 and 2 under the unreserved category and had been selected and engaged but the petitioner-appellant being at Sl. No. 3 having secured lesser marks could not have been engaged. No. 3. It is evident from the merit list that the candidates, who have secured higher marks, have been placed at Sl. No. 1 and 2 under the unreserved category and had been selected and engaged but the petitioner-appellant being at Sl. No. 3 having secured lesser marks could not have been engaged. We have further found from the record that Subhalaxmi Sahoo had been selected under the SEBC category and as such, the petitioner-appellant cannot take the help of the appointment of Subhalaxmi Sahoo since the candidature of the petitioner-appellant vis-à-vis the candidature of Subhalaxmi Sahoo is altogether under different category, i.e., the petitioner-appellant is in the unreserved category while Subhalaxmi Sahoo is under the SEBC category. Further, we have found that the merit list was prepared having been approved on 29.3.2011 and as such, the validity of the waiting list remained in force till 28.3.2012. Law is settled that the validity of a merit list cannot be given effect to after expiry of one year from the date of preparation/approval of the merit list. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the validity period of the waiting list, has declined to interfere with the matter. 6. We, on appreciation of the fact as also the order impugned in the instant appeal, are of the considered view that even on merit the petitioner-appellant has got no case as has been discussed hereinabove. Furthermore, the petitioner-appellant is claiming her engagement on the basis of the select list of the year 2010-11 and as such, learned Single Judge has passed the order after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, hence, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge while declining to interfere with the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.