Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ACFrOgArnekdkdMi3vfUb1mfM6jHDYzHx3Io4x7otcDJUVIQVv2Ou0YVVYyLD BgjYD7gz0N7Lb 6amdlAJxb22aWXlppDuyfVJOS3xQ6Q5dHGBiaj8qzXtKe5Y8FaI

    Uploaded by

    Partha Sarathi Parhi
    3 views26 pages
    court case

    Original Title

    ACFrOgArnekdkdMi3vfUb1mfM6jHDYzHx3Io4x7otcDJUVIQVv2Ou0YVVYyLD-BgjYD7gz0N7Lb-6amdlAJxb22aWXlppDuyfVJOS3xQ6Q5dHGBiaj8qzXtKe5Y8FaI=

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    court case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views26 pages

    ACFrOgArnekdkdMi3vfUb1mfM6jHDYzHx3Io4x7otcDJUVIQVv2Ou0YVVYyLD BgjYD7gz0N7Lb 6amdlAJxb22aWXlppDuyfVJOS3xQ6Q5dHGBiaj8qzXtKe5Y8FaI

    Uploaded by

    Partha Sarathi Parhi
    court case

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 26
    APPLICATION UNDER SECTION19 OF THE STATE ADMINISRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE OF FILING:- oR DATE OF RECEP REGISTRATION NO.O.A.NO. SIF (C) OF 2017 CUTTACK Date: REGISTER BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK O.A.No, & FF _(C) of 2017 Om Prakash Bal and Others Applicants -Versus- State of Odisha and others Respondents aot F Original Appi'cation. of final ‘Annexure-4 Copy of 181 candidate appointment order S| Annexure-5 __| Copy of 181 candidate list 7 Annexure-6 “_| Copy of bonafide cer cates 10 | Annexure=9 i - | 153 Copy of OBC certificate of Pallavi Dey _ _ bee 11 Annexure-10 154-268 _| Copy of caste certificat 12) Annexure=11 _| Copy of degree certificates ~ Annexure-1 182-183 |” _| Copy of Odia pass certificates 14 Annexure=13 169-181 187 | Annexure-14 — 188-199 Sf No Objection certificates _ meee eel ‘ 16) Annexure-15 200-236 | Copy. tes submitted without signature &date | © i? Annexure-16 217-314 | Copy of qualification certificates submitted after last date Te) Annexure-17, Copy of RTI reply by opse to jagannath pattnaik Annexure-18 _Copy of RTI reply by opse to Om prakash | re __| Copy of ART reply Cuttack Date: Advocate for the Applicants BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK O.A.No. C) of 201¢ In the matter of: An application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act; AND BETWEEN: . Om Prakash Bal , Aged About 25 years S/O: Ganeswar Bal At/Po: Purunia Dist: Keonjhar , Pin:758020 Tapan Kumar Nayak , Aged About 31 years S/O: Surendra Prasad Nayak At/Po: Basudevpur Dist: Bhadrak, Pin: 756125 Rama Chandra Nayak , Aged About 31 years $/O: Shyamasundar Nayak At/Po: Baselihata Dist: Cuttack, Pin:754037 Satyajit Mohapatra , Aged About 31years M al * S/O: Sarada prasanna Jena At:Kulasahi , Po: Mehendinagar Dist: Kendrapara , Pin:754244 Bhabani Shankar Pradhan , Aged About 26 years $/0:Bhagaban Pradhan At/Po: R.Badmal, Via Jujumura Dist: Sambalpur, Pin: 768105 a o a @ © . JyotiPrakash Panda , Aged About 25 years S/O: Gadadhar Panda At/Po:Bamakura, Via-Dhusuri, Dist: Bhadrak, Pin:756119 Jagannath Pattanaik , Aged About 30 years S/O: Radhanath Pattanaik M.LG - 61, Phase-1 Khandagiri Housing Board Colony Dist: Khorda , Pin:751030 . DibyaPrakash Panda , Aged About 25 years S/O: Pramod Kumar Panda At/Po: Baghamari Dist: Khorda, Pin:752061 . Nibedita Pradhan, Aged About 32 years D/O: Jagabandhu Pani W/O: Tirthabasi Pradhan Flat No: 106, Angel Avenue, Balianta, Andilo Dist: Khurdha, Pin:752101 ..Applicants -Versus- State of Odisha, represented through its Principal Secretary to Water Resources Department, At-Rajiv Bhavan, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda, Pin:751001 State of Odisha, represented through Its Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Housing and Urban Development Department, At-Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, Pin:751001 State of Odisha, represented through its EIC-cum-Secretary to Works Department, At-Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, Pin:751001 Odisha Public Service Commission, represented its Secretary, At-P.K. Parija Road, Gopabandhu Marg, P.O. Buxibazar, Dist-Cuttack,Pin:753001 o 10. i. Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar, khordha, Pin:751001 Aswini Kumar Santa, aged about 40 years Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), Panchayat Samiti, Chilika Dist: Khurda Pin: 752037 Raju Dhaunlia, aged about 38 years Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), Estimator, RD-Gunupur, O/o: RD-Executive Engineer, Gunupur Dist: Rayagada Pin:765022 Pallavi Dey, aged about 25 years Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), Panchayat Samiti, Badasahi Dist: Mayurbhanj Pin-757075 Asmita Pradhan, aged about 23 years Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), Estimator, N.H Division Dist: Jharsuguda, Pin: 768202 Pratap Kumar Naik, aged about 23 years Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), Panchayat Samiti, Kotpad Dist: Koraput, Pin-764058 Dibyendu Pradhan, aged about 34 years Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), O/o: Executive Engineer Mega Lift Project Dist: Jeypore Pin-764001 «Respondents 4 DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION 1, PARTICULARS OF THE APPLICANT:- (i) Name of the applicants: (ii) Husband’s Name: ‘As above (ili) Address: (iv) Designation and office in which employed: (v)_ Office Address:~ As stated above. or C/o. Sri Saswat Das, Advocate, Orissa High Court, Cuttack 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS:~ (i) Name and designation of the Respondents: (ii) Office address of the As above Respondents: (il) Address for service of notices: 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THIS APPLICATION ISMADE:- (i) Order No.:- (ii) Date:- (ii) Passed by:- (iv) Subject in brief: That, the applicants who had offered their candidature for the post of Asst. Executive Engineer pursuant to the advertisement No.3/2015-16 issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC), in the present original application, seek to challenge the order of appointment issued in favour of 181 nos of candidates appointed as Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Water Resources Department, 4 Denartment and the Housina Urban Develooment Deoartment 5 ind that the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the ons stipulated in the advertisement inasmuch the same is rary to the principles of natural justice. The short grievance of the applicants in the present original application is that though the applicants had offered their candidature pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and were called upon to appear the written examination after thcir applications were found to be in order but for the reasons best known to the authorities, their results were not published, even though they had secured more marks than the cut off marks prescribed ty the respondents. The further short grievance of the applicants is that though the private respondents, i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 11 including another 176 nos of candidates, who had no requisites qualification, in other words they did not possess the certificates of qualification as on the last date of the application form but they were called upon to participate in the Process of selection and were subsequently given appointment against the post of Asst. Executive Engineer in gross violation of the terms and conditions of the appointment. Therefore, the applicants call in question the said action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and colorable exercise of power which is based on certain extraneous considerations. 4. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL:- The applicants declare that the subject matter of the application against which they want redressal is :vithin the jurisdiction of this Hon‘ble Tribunal. 5, LIMITATION: - The applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation as Prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 6. FACTS OF THE CASE:- 6.1, That, in order to fill up a large number ot posts of Asst. Executive Engineer in the Department of Works as well as the Housing and Urban Development, the respondent No.3 on the basis of requisition moved by the State Government issued an advertisement Dearing Advt. No.3/2015-16. So far as the total number of posts advertised for the post of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil) under H & U D Department is concerned, it is 134, Water Resources Department is Concerned, it is 291 & so far as the Works Department Is concerned, it is 232. A copy of such advertisement No.3/2015-16 is annexed herewith as Annexure-1, 6.2. That, so far as the last date for submission of the online application is concerned, it is on 27.05.2015. The last date for deposit Of the application fees at any branch of the State Bank of India was 29.05.2015 and the last date for receipt of print out/hard copy of the online application along with the copy of the specified Gocuments/certificates is 12.06.2015, 6.3. That, after such advertisement, a corrigendum dated 29.05.2015 was issued by the respondent No.3 to the aforesaid advertisement relaxing maximum age limit tc 45 years in respect of ie candidates who have acquired Diploma Engineering Certificate as or not within the prescribed age limit without the application prescribed. So far as the last date of the online application is concerned, it was further extended up to 15.06.2015. A copy of such corrigendum dated 29.05.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure-2. 6.4. That, pursuant to the aforesaid ac vertisement nearly about 14000 candidates offered their candidature out of which 7355 candidates had offered their candidature for the post of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil). 6.5. That, as per the schedule fixed by the OPSC, the applicants along with a large number of candidates appeared in the written examination. During the written examination, the expectation of the applicants shattered as they surprisingl, found that no discipline and fairness in the examination hall was maintained by the respondents. The candidates were freely permitted to have group discussion, used smart phones, Ipads, Pagers and other electronics devices to solve the question inside the examination hall which is in direct violation of the guidelines and instructions issued by the OPSC. There was no checking of admit cards, mobile phones and study materials and there was frequent ingress and >utgress of the outsiders into the examination hall. 6.6. That, being aggrieved by such irregularities allowed by the respondents during the course of examination, some similarly placed candidates gave on writing a memorandum to the Chief Secretary and Chairman, OPSC and also the Director General of Police. There were also few newspaper publications showing resentment of the candidates over the issue. 8 6.6. That, since no action whatsoever was taken by the aforesaid horities, some candidates filed an original application bearing O.A. Nos.3551(C) of 2015 to quash the process of selection including the written examination held on 30.08.2015 pursuant to the advertisement No.3/2015-16. 6.7. That, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 06.10.2015 was pleased to issue notice to the respondents and as an interim measure, directed that let the process of recruitment continue but no final result shall be published. However, the aforesaid order was modified by this Hon‘ble Tribunal on 04.17.2015 with a permission to the OPSC to publish the result of the examination subject to result of the original application and further directed to incorporate in the appointment letter of the last candidates that in the event the applicants succeed, the last candidate shall make aware for him and directed the reservation in any event may not be exceeded 50%. 6.8. That, during operation of the aforesaid interim order, another original application was filed by some candidates bearing 0.A. No.3633(C) of 2016. However, the order not to publish the final result was in operation but the said fact was concealed by the authorities and despite such interim order was passed in O.A. No.3633(C) of 2016, the respondents published the final merit list on 01.02.2016 vide notice No.614 PSC dated 01.02.2016. A copy of the merit list prepared by the respondents is annexed herewith as Annexure-3. Being aggrieved, by such preparation of merit lists of the applicants filed CP no-28/2016 in which notice was issued to the opposite parties by this Hon'ble Tribunal. That it is worthwhile to mention here that in respect of applicants no- 1 to 5 their written result was not publish as on date. However though applicants No-6 to 9 were allowed to participate in the written & viva, but yet they are also not about to know their results. 6.10. That, while the matter stood thus, the aforesaid original application was taken up for final hearing and this Hon’ble Tribunal vide judgment dated 22.03.2016 was pleased to pass the following directions: “() The Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Amendment. Rules, 2015 has no application to the present recruitment and the posts advertised and accordingly the corrigendum issued pursuant to the said amendment vide Annexure-2 series (in O.A. No.3633(C)/2015 are bad in law and the said corrigendum are quashed. (ii) Selection and appointment, if any, made pursuant to the impugned corrigendum are quashed, (ili) Advertisement issued in respect of the posts exceeding ceiling limit of 50% reservation is bad in law being violative of the principles of reservation and hence quashed. (iv) Action of the OPSC in excluding incorrect question/questions out of syllabus for evaluation is also illegal and hence set aside. Consequently, instead of quashing the entire recruitment, which will affect a large number of meritorious candidates; the respondents State of Odisha and OPSC are directed; -10- (i) to prepare merit list in respect of the candidates, who have applied and appeared in the recruitment examination pursuant to 1% advertisement dated 17.04.2015 (without going any relaxation as per the corrigendum) restricting reservation to the extent of 50%. (ii) Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while preparing the merit/select list, the OPSC is directed to delete the incorrect question/question out of syllabus (faulty questions) and add/allot prorate marks. On the basis of the select list prepared, appointment orders be issued in favour of the selected candidates. The entire exercise be completed within a Period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 0.A.s are accordingly disposed of.” 6.11. That, being aggrieved by the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, those applicants who were parties to the original 2pplications bearing O.A. Nos.3633(C) of 2015, 2652(C) of 2015 and 2653 (C) of 2015 preferred writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.7756 of 2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and accordingly, the Hon‘ble High Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 04.10.2016 was pleased to issue notice to the opposite parties and as an interim measure directed that operation of the order Gated 22.03.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.3633(C) of 2015 shall be kept in abeyance till the next date and the aforesaid it application is pending before the Hon‘ble High Court for switeetinn. 11 6.12. That, it is worthwhile to mention here that the aforesaid writ application was heard analogously along with W.P.(C) Nos.8063, 8877, 8290 and 15877 of 2016. 6.13. That, while the matter stood thus, the appointment orders were issued in respect of the aforesaid 181nos. of candidates whose name found place in the merit list. Copies of such appointment letter issued in favour of 181nos of candidates from among of the final select list of 651 nos of candidates prepared in respect of the Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil) is annexed here with as Annexute-4 6.14. The applicants have made a comprehensive sheet sharing the irregularities committed by the authorities while selecting the 181 candidates the copies of which is annexed here with as Annexure-5 6.15. That, the appointment and selection of the aforesaid candidates are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law for the following reasons: (a) From bare perusal of the list of candidates, it can be revealed that the candidates whose name found place from SL.Nos. 1 to 19 had submitted Bonafide qualification certificates issued by Biju Pattnaik University of Technology (BPUT) as on the last date of the application form as prescribed in the advertisement. These candidates were provided with the provisional certificate/Grade sheet for the session 2014-15 pass out students only on 16.07.2015 by BPUT (With respect to RTI Reply ) Whereas AICTE have cleared through RTI that "It is informed that AICTE, as per the presence policy is not providing 12. equivalence to the qualifications obtained from AICTE's approved institutions/departments at any level for higher education purpose as well as for employment purpose". is annexed here with as Annexute-6 In this context, it is humbly submitted that so far as the qualification prescribed in the advertisement for appointment to the post of Asst. Executive Engineer, a candidate must hold a Degree in Engineering in Civil or Mechanical or an equivalent qualification from any University or Institution recognized by the Government, or the candidate must be a Associate Member of the Institution of Engineering in India in Civil or Mechanical, which otherwise means a candidate who intent to offer his candidature pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Asst. Executive Engineer shall primarily possess the Degree in Engineering in Civil or Mechanical or equivalent qualification from any University or institution recognized by the Government or by an Associate Member of the Institution of Engineers of India in Civil or Mechanical by the last date of the online application fixed by the respondents in the advertisement, i.e., 27.05.2015 or by 15.06.2015 as per the corrigendum issued by the respondents but in the present case in hand, the candidates whose name found place at SI.Nos.1 to 19 did not possess the requisite qualification as they had not been provided with the pass out certificates by BPUT as on 16.07.2015 and therefore, these candidates were absolutely ineligible to offer their candidature by 3- the last date of the advertisement but in gross violation of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement as well as against the principles of fair play, these candidates were allowed to participate in the process of selection and in their favour, the appointment orders have been issued. In this context, it is further humbly submitted that so far as the bona fide certificates submitted by the candidates as obtained from the BPUT before the last date of receiving the application form pursuant to the advertisement is concerned, it is unknown to law inasmuch as it cannot be conceived in the eye of law that a bonafide certificate which is beyond purview of the statute of BPUT can be issued by a technical University neither under the BPUT Act nor in the BPUT Statute, there is any provision conferring power on the University authorities to issue such bonafide certificates and therefore, along these candidates to participate in the selection process is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law and in consequence whereof, the appointment letters issued in favour of all these candidates is also not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that such action of the opposite parties is not only in violation of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement but also in gross violation of the Rule 6(b) of the Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. A copy of such bona fide certificate issued in favour of some candidates by the BPUT is annexed herewith as Annexure-Z. -14- (b) Further when under Right To Information Act it was asked to AICTE to provide Information on" whether Bonafide Certificate is equivalent to Degree certificate or Provisional certificate. Is it authentic or valid and can be accorded weightage at the time of service". The copy of such information obtained under RTI Act is annexed herewith as Annexure-8. (c) That, the candidates whose name Pallavi Dey, found place at SI.Nos.20 belongs OBC category but she selected as SEBC category. Which is a gross violation of advertisement -03 of 2015- 16? Where in the note Appended to Page No.7, I.e. Note -1 (li) indicated that "OBC CERTIFICATES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF SEBC CERTIVFICATES AND CANDIDATES SUBMITTING OBC CERTIFICATES WILL BE TREATED AS UNRESERVED CANDIDATES" is annexed herewith as Annexure-9. (d) That, the candidates whose names found place at SI.Nos.21 to 36 all of them belongs reserved category and therefore, it was a mandatory condition under the advertisement to produce the caste certificates towards the proof of the reservation as on the last date of the receiving application forms, ie, 27.05.2015 or as on 15.06.2015 but however, these candidates have been allowed to submit their caste certificates on 29.12.2015, 08.01.2016, 21.03.2016, 11.04.2016, 26.03.2016, 12.04.2016, 11.04.2016, 11.04.2016, 01.01.2016, 23.12.2015,22.12.2015, 15.12.2015, 11.04.2016, 06.01.2016, 02.01.2016, 12.04.2016 and in gross violation of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. In this context, it is worthwhile to -15- mention here that on the last date of receiving the application form, these candidates had no caste certificates issued in their favour by the concerned Tahasildar of the respective area and they did not possess any caste certificate and only 29.12.2015, 07.01.2016, 21.03.2016, 31.12.2015, 26.03.2016, 19.08.2015, 24.09.2015, 11.12.2015, 24.07.2015, 27.08.2015,22.12.2015, 15.12.2015, 16.11.2015, 17.12.2015, 11.09.2015, 18.06.201Srespectively, the caste certificate were issued in their favour by the concerned Tahasildar and therefore, there was no action on the part of the OPSC to allow those candidates to offer their candidature for the above posts in absence of any caste certificate by the last date of receiving the application form. It appears that these candidates in absence of any caste certificate have availed age relaxation in gross violation of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement as well as the corrigendum. Therefore, it is further humbly submitted that the aforesaid action of the respondents is not only contrary to the conditions stipulated in the advertisement but also in gross violation of Rule 5(a) of the Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. Copies of some caste certificates issued in respect of the students are annexed herewith as Annexure-10. (e) The candidates whose name found place at SI.Nos.37 to 39 did not possess either the mark sheet or the certificate from the concerned University towards their Degree qualification either in Mechanical or Civil Courses, even the provisional certificate in resnect of one Sushri Sanaita Shaw. Abhilash Prasad Behera and -16- Narayan Roul was issued by the concerned University on 07.07.2015, i.e., beyond the date prescribed for receiving application form from the eligible candidates. It is quite surprising that the candidates namely, Kushan Kumar Hembram,, Binod Bagarti and Sweta Swagatika Dash of SI.Nos.40 to 42, submitted their so-called certificate issued in the letter pad with @ heading “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN” as B-Tech Certificate.A candidate namely Sushanta Kumar Pattnaik and Shyamak Vikas Subudhi of SI.Nos.43 to 44 submitted their conducted certificates and their course completion certificates respectively as certificates towards their qualification which is unknown to law inasmuch as there was no such relaxation prescribed in the advertisement. From the contentions as stated above, it can be revealed that these candidates, however did not possess their qualification by the last date of their application form or had produced certain documents towards proof of their qualification certificate which cannot be acceptable in the eyes of law and therefore, no fairness has been adopted by the respondents in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Asst. Executive Engineers. Therefore, the said action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and is based on certain extraneous considerations inasmuch as the same is in violation of the Rule 6(b) of the of the Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. (f) The candidates whose names found in the place at SI.Nos.45 to 48 submitted their Grade Sheet and Migration exKirc: wibideds foe ward: Fact Wivaie Heameta temic. echecrntieecat neal AT. acceptable in the eye of law and is in gross violation of Rule 6(b) of the Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. Copy of such certificate obtained under the Right to Information Act is annexed herewith as Annexure-11. (g) A candidate namely Pratap Kumar Naik & Sala Sangita Tudu name found place at SI.No.49 and 50 produced Odia pass certificate issued by Ghanashyam Hemalata VidyaMandir, Jharsuguda & Delhi Public School, NALCO Nagar on 28.: 2.2015 and 28.12.2015 respectively which is admittedly beyond the last date of receiving application form as prescribed in the advertisement. Similarly, one Aswin Kumar Santa whose name found place at SI.No.51. Therefore, the said action of the respondents in accepting the application form of these candidates without any certificate towards proof of their educational qualification as on the last date of the application form is not only illegal, arbitrary but also in gross- violation of Rule 6(b) of the Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. Copy of such certificate obtained under the Right to Information Act is annexed herewith as Annexure-12, (h) Similarly, one Aswin Kumar Santa whose name found place at SI.No.51 who belongs to a SEBC category at the time of offering his candidature submitted a certificate toward: the Degree qualification issued by Janardan Ray Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapitha (Deemed) University, Directorate of Distance Education, Udaipur, Rajasthan. So -18- fer as the technical education is concerned, either it is a University or Private Educational Institution both are to follow the norms prescribed by the AICTE. In this context, it is humbly submitted that upon inquiry from AICTE through RTI Act, it was provided that the AICTE do not recognize the qualification acquired through the distance education mode at Diploma/Bachelor Degree or Master Degree level in the field of Engineering. The AICTE further under the RTI Act provided that it does not recognize the institution like Janardan Ray Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapitha (Deemed) University which is a private Engineering College through distance mode and therefore, the application form of Aswin Kumar Santa should have been rejected by the authorities more particularly the OPSC at the very threshold. Since Sri Aswin Kumar Santa on the date of offering his candidature did not possess the requisite qualification from a recognized University is consequential appointment under the Water Resources Department as Asst. Executive Engineer is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the same is in gross violation of Rule 6(b) of the Odisha Engineering Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. Further it is worthwhile to mention here that another candidate whose name found place at SI,No.52 is Raju Dhaunlia also passed from Janardan Ray Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapitha. The copy of such information obtained under the RTI Act is annexed herewith as Annexure -13. @ The candidates whose name found place at SI.Nos.53 to 64 @re Govt Servant and had not submitted “No Objection Certificate” from the head of office / head of department / Appointing authority, -19- clause 11(V) by OPSC. However the No Objection produced from the concern BDO was accepted by the OPSC though BDO are not competent authority Issuing of the certificates are annexed herewith 2s Annexure-14. (j) So far as the candidates whose names found place at Sl.Nos.65 to 81 and 113 to 181are concerned, though these candidates were offered with the appointment letters to continue against the post of Asst. Executive Engineer either in Housing and Urban Development Department, Water Resources Department as well as the Works Department but the fact remains that these candidates submitted their certificates towards proof of their qualification without any signature or date by the competent authority and therefore, their educational certificates under no circumstances can be considered as valid educational certificates in terms of the advertisement so as to participate in the process of selection or to hold the post of Asst. Executive Engineer in the aforesaid departments. As it appears, the respondents in order to show favour to those candidates allowed them to participate in Lhe process of selection in absence of any valid certificates or the certificates despite submission of the certificates without any date or signature by the competent authority. Therefore, their appointments as Asst. Executive Engineer are liable to be quashed. The copies of such certificates are annexed herewith as Annexure-15. -20- (k)So far as the candidates whose names found place at SI.Nos.82 to 112 are concerned, all these candidates submitted the certificates towards their educational qualification beyond the last date of receipt of application form as prescribed in the advertisement which can be revealed from the list as provided by the applicants. Therefore, the said action of the respondents in allowing the candidates to submit the certificates towards their educational qualification on the last date of receiving application form is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law inasmuch as it is against the Rule of fair play in the process of allowing the candidates to participate in the process of selection by offering their candidature/application form without any educational qualification is like changing the rule of the game afler Lhe yame hes begun. Therefore, any appointment given to this candidates subsequently is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. Copies of the certificates issued by the competent authority towards their proof of qualification under the RTI Act is annexed herewith as Annexure-16. (!) That, further irregularities of the OPSC can be revealed from the information obtained under the RTI Act to the extent that when the applicants under the RTI Act asked the OPSC to furnish information with respect to the cut off mark fixed by the OPSC for selection of candidates, it was informed vide letter dated 27.02.2016 by the OPSC that no such cut off mark is fixed by the OPSC but however, when applicant no 7 in present OA namely Jagannath Pattanaik under the RTI Act asked the OPSC Sudivices: HTT Teuniecinn. ac fe wh he woe cr’: calorie & wes OM informed that the cut off mark fixed by the OPSC is 268 and the said candidate did not fulfill that cut off mark and therefore he should not be selected. The copy of such information is annexed herewith as Annexure-17. (m) Further when applicant no-7 namely Om Prakash Bal under the RTI act asked to OPSC in Which basis it selected the candidates for viva voice and if written test is the process, then give the highest secure mark for general (male & female), SEBC (male & female), ST (male & female), SC (male & female) &lowest mark qualify for viva voice for general (male & female), SEBC (male & female), ST (male & female), SC (male & female). According to OPSC vide letter no-1894/ psc, Dated on 04/04/2016 that “it is informed that no such information available in the office & it is informed that no such category wise highest and lowest statement has been prepared in the office” it clearly indicates that the mala fide intention was carried by OPSC. The copy of such information is annexed herewith as Annexure-18. In this context, it is humbly submitted that when the number of candidates is more than the number of vacancies, then certainly, the OSPC is to draw a list of candidates by fixing the cut off mark. In the present case in hand, since the number of candidate were more than the number of posts as advertised, die TABEIXK cumalccdent tia caciiiean ‘moawniecaiie: willie” coum -22- subsequently followed by viva voce test and thereafter they prepared @ combined merit list of the candidates by fixing a cut off mark but from bare perusal of the information was obtained under the RTI Act, it can be revealed that the candidates who have secured more marks than the cut off marks fixed by the OPSC having not been allowed to participate in the process of selection and their candidature have been rejected whereas the candidate whose names found place in the list, they were allowed to participate and were appointed in the post of Asst. Executive Engineer in the Department of Works and Housing and Urban Development Department despite having less mark than the cut off mark fixed by the OPSC. Therefore, no fairness has been adopted by the OPSC while conducting the aforesaid examination and any such appointment made pursuant to the aforesaid unfair selection process is lable to be interfered with by this Hon’‘ble Tribunal and should be quashed. In this context, law is well settled by the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court that recruitment to the post must be made strictly in terms of the Rule holding in the field essentially qualification must be possessed by a person as ‘on the date of issuance of notification or as specified in the Rules and only in absence thereof the qualification acquired till the last date or finally the application would be relevant date. But in the present case in hand, all the candidates who were subsequently offered the order of appointment did not possess the requisite qualification as on the last date of receipt of application form. Rieewec: oil

    You might also like