Pradip Kumar Mohanty, J. - (1.) In the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant calls in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3869 of 2015 by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, challenging the cancellation of her candidature on the ground of failure on her part to appear for verification of certificates on the given dates, has been rejected.
(2.) The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ application, is that in pursuance to Advertisement No. 03 (Pa)/2013 for filling up the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner-appellant along with others applied and after going through the selection process list of successful candidates was published in daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" and accordingly they were directed to appear for document verification between 25.08.2014 to 28.08.2014. The time for verification of documents was further extended by way of notice published in daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" dated 11.09.2014 and 29.10.2014. Finally, the respondent-authority cancelled the candidature of 62 candidates including the petitioner-appellant and notice to that effect was published in daily newspaper dated 06.12.2014. However, after coming to know about cancellation of her candidature, she submitted a representation on 16.02.2015 stating that since at the relevant point of time she was at the advanced stage of pregnancy and was residing at the remote village, where there was no facility of Internet and irregular circulation of newspaper, she could not appear for document verification. But the respondent-authority rejected the representation of the petitioner on 22.05.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3869 of 2015, which was rejected vide order dated 29.06.2016. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner impugning the aforesaid judgment/order passed by learned Single Judge.
(3.) Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, J.C to learned G.P. I for the respondent-State and Mr. Tejo Mistri, for the respondentCommission.;