PRATIMA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-11-5
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on November 09,2020

Pratima Sahoo Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S. K. Mishra, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/ writs or direction/ directions quashing the impugned order dated 23.05.2012 i.e. Annexure-6 issued by the opposite party no.3- District Project Coordinator, SSA, Nayagarh and directing the opposite parties more particularly the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh, At/PO/ District- Nayagarh to engage her in the post of Sikhya Sahayak in any Primary School under Bhapur Block.
(2.) Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner- Pratima Sahoo was initially engaged as Anganwadi Worker under the C.D.P.O., Bhapur Block, Bhapur and while she was continuing in the said post, an advertisement was floated for filling up of the post of Sikhya Sahayak under Bhapur Block Circle for which the petitioner who had satisfied all the eligibility criteria in terms of the said advertisement offered her candidature for the post of Sikhya Sahayak. Since the petitioner has acquired B.Ed. training, the Selection Committee after due verification, selected the petitioner for the post of Sikhya Sahayak under Bhapur Block vide letter dated 31.08.2007 and she was requested to submit necessary documents for verification, on 05.09.2007 in the office of the opposite party no.3-District Project Coordinator, SSA, Nayagarh. On the said date, the documents of the petitioner were verified. 02.1. Thereafter, the petitioner on receiving the engagement order for the post of Sikhya Sahayak resigned from the post of Anganwadi Worker and joined as Sikhya Sahayak on 17.10.2007. While she was continuing as such, all on a sudden, she got a letter on 20.02.2008 wherein the opposite party no.3- District Project Coordinator, SSA, Nayagarh had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why she would not be disengaged from the post of Sikhya Sahayak since she secured less percentage of mark then other candidates. 02.2. On receipt of such letter, the petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(C) No.3548 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court on 04.04.2008 directing the opposite party no.2-Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh to consider the case of the petitioner. On 26.08.2008, the petitioner was disengaged from the post of Sikhya Sahayak with immediate effect on the ground that she has secured 94.66% of mark in B.A. and B.Ed. percentage taken together whereas the lowest cut-off mark for selection in the category was 96.76%. 02.3. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1940 of 2009 which was disposed of at the threshold directing the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of four months. On 15.03.2012, the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.1478 of 2010 filed by the petitioner challenging the disengagement order dated 26.08.2008, under Annexure-4, was disposed of, on the basis of the instructions submitted by the District Project Coordinator of the School and Mass Education Department that there were 2 vacancies in B.Ed. category, directing the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh to reconsider the matter, if any post is lying vacant, by taking a sympathetic view. On 23.03.2012, the petitioner filed a fresh representation before the opposite party no.2 enclosing a copy of the order dated 15.03.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1478 of 2010. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh on 21.05.2012 vide enclosed disposal order under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. That order passed by the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh on 21.05.2012 was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.05.2012 under Annexure-6 issued by the opposite party no.3-District Project Coordinator, SSA, Nayagarh. In the order dated 21.05.2012 the exact reasons given by the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh in rejecting the representation of the petitioner can be well perceived from the plain languages used by him. "In order to comply the Hon'ble High Court's order in W.P.(C) No.1940/2009, the petitioner Smt. Sahoo was heard personally on 8.4.2009 by the then Collector. The Collector observed that it is not a matter only between the Appointing Authority and the Appointee concerned. The aggrieved one can be all those who had similar or better qualification than the appointee. It will be improper to appoint a person with inferior or lower marks ignoring better candidates. Giving reengagement to such candidates will amount to perpetuation of injustice." (underline supplied)
(3.) Terming the reasoning given by the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh to be inappropriate and erroneous, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while considering the case between the Appointing Authority and the Appointee concerned, the opposite party no.2- Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nayagarh should not have taken into consideration the persons who may have higher marks than the petitioner but has accepted the fait accompli and have not taken any step for redressal of their grievances, if they have any. 03.1. The other distinguishing feature in this case is that the cases of some persons were considered, though they have not come forward to knock the doors of the Court or even of the authorities. But, when the petitioner was found eligible; she was given letter of appointment; she resigned from her service as an Anganwadi Worker and then joined the post of Sikhya Sahayak and continued for some time, thereafter, this matter arose.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.